It used to be that people would wait for July 7 each year to attend the running of the bulls in Spain. No more. Now every June, simply walk down any street in America or turn on any TV station and you can enjoy(?) the same experience. Droves of depravedly dressed dudes, divas, and drag queens parade their perversities in public as a matter of “pride.” While some willingly seek out this spectacle, others who have no interest are like unwilling participants on the pavement of Pamplona, being trampled or gored by the pride propaganda bearing down on them.

Their pride also penetrates the walls of stores and malls, bringing displays of depravity most don’t care to see. All this for a small but very vocal minority of people who wish to revel in their sin. And for that, normal people must navigate daily life as if traversing a minefield fetid with feces. This delicate egg-shell-walking-act is perhaps best described as attempting to sidestep steaming scat (which would enshroud one in excrement) and to avoid tripping a hair-trigger that would set off an explosion from that special sect resulting in the navigator either being blown up or splattered with the scat around which they were trying to tiptoe. It is near impossible to avoid.

Why must we all endure this collective carnival? Why must impressionable children be exposed to this inanity? Of what are those members in this small minority “proud”? Is it their deviancy, degeneracy, debauchery, and delusion? Or perhaps the defilement and destruction of the English language? None of these are cause for “pride,” which is in itself not a good thing. As the Bible teaches, “pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before stumbling” (Proverbs 16:18). Make no mistake - the alliterated accounting of attributes I mentioned is accurate. There was a time when all of the reasons people now celebrate “pride” in June were considered psychological disorders (some are still listed in the International Classification of Diseases - ICD). They were not removed because of any scientific revelations that proved any of it normal; they were declassified because of pressure and politics. People believe it unkind to classify someone with a disorder as someone with a disorder. So slowly, euphemisms replace hard truths. Transsexualism becomes gender dysphoria (or gender dysphoric disorder) which then becomes gender incongruence and now simply “transgender.” No matter what you call it, it still is a disconnect between the body and brain, an inability to accept reality. Likewise, sex change operations are redefined as gender transition surgery and then gender affirmation therapy. Again, the change in terminology does not change the fact that they all mean lopping off body parts because someone suffers from an inability to accept reality.

I’m sure many will cast aspersions such as “homophobe” and “transphobe” at me. These words are examples of more twisted terminology. Neither I, nor most who recognize sin as sin, fear homosexuals or so-called “transgenders,” yet that is what the construction of these words implies (a “phobia” is a fear not hatred). We may be sick of being told other people’s fetishes and fantasies are normal, but most of us don’t care what consenting adults do behind closed doors, and most of us pity those who believe this is normal; we don’t hate them. It is out of true love that people like myself want to see them lead lives that are healthier and better for them. Scripture makes it abundantly clear that these behaviors are degrading and sinful (not that reading Scripture is required to understand that none of these behaviors qualify as “normal”); reading Romans chapter 1 should be enough for anyone to see this, though many try to argue it away. You’ll hear “love is love” (and those arguing against Romans 1 will say that the condemnation in Romans 1 has to do with lust, not love), and “no one should be discriminated against just because of who they love.” Again, this is an upending of the English vernacular. Homosexuality, no matter how much people argue to the contrary, is not about love - it is about sex. That is why sex is in the term. The dictionary definition (from dictionary.com, which now comes with a trigger warning) reads as follows:

adjective

1. Often Disparaging and Offensive. sexually attracted to people of one's own sex or gender; gay:

homosexual couples.

2. Often Disparaging and Offensive. of or relating to sexual desire or behavior directed toward people of one's own sex or gender.

3. Archaic. of, relating to, or noting the same sex:

She gave birth to homosexual twins.

noun

4. Often Disparaging and Offensive.

   1. a person, especially a man, who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex or gender.

   2. a person, especially a man, who is sexually attracted exclusively to people of the same sex or gender.

If it were not about sex, if it was about love, I and many other men (and women) would be homosexual. I have had several men in my life whom I have loved dearly, yet I have never been sexually attracted to any of them nor any other men. So please, stop with the “love is love”; if you wish to use a tepid trope like that, stick with the truth: lust is lust. That applies equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals, and in both cases, lust is condemned by God. This is why I most pity those who celebrate it.

Aside from Romans 1 speaking against it, and just as harshly speaking against those who encourage and celebrate it, most may not realize that the pride flag is an attempt to rub it in God’s face. In days of old, when those on the Earth had become utterly debauched, God decided to wipe all life from the face of the planet:

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”

Genesis 6:5-7

After destroying by flood all life on Earth, save those in the ark with Noah, God made Noah a promise:

Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done…I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.” God said, “This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations; I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. It shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow will be seen in the cloud, and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the cloud, then I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

Genesis 8:20-21,9:11-17

The rainbow is a sign of God’s covenant with mankind that He will never again destroy all living things by flood in response to their sin. Those using the rainbow to represent “pride” are thumbing their noses at God, flaunting their sin and taking advantage of God’s promise. This ought not be, and those not involved in the perversion should know better than to encourage it. No, this is nothing to be proud of, and as the Bible promises, this pride will eventually lead to destruction. I pray people’s hearts are changed before it is too late.

With today’s economic conditions, many Americans are finding it difficult to save for retirement. Oh, there’s Social Security of course, the government’s Ponzi scheme forced retirement savings plan, but the threat of insolvency hangs over the heads of Americans like a virtual sword of Damocles.

While Americans struggle to sock away funds for their own later years, they are forced by government not only to pay into the Social Security system from which Congress has looted many times over, but also into the retirement fund(s) for Congress itself. Yes, Congressmen receive “pensions” upon retirement, and some have even called for pulling the pensions of politicians found philandering.

This is an interesting, and rather frustrating, topic, as the Constitution does not provide for a congressional pension at all. According to the Constitution, “the Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States” (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). That is all that the Constitution has to say about representatives’ remuneration.

Even at that, in the days of the founders, senatorial salaries were generally per diem because Congress did not meet often nor did they spend much time in Washington DC, because travel was more difficult, they understood that their responsibilities were few and defined, and holding elected office was never intended to be a career.

That notwithstanding, politicians now spend decades in office collecting an annual salary, and, since 1920 (imagine that, shortly after the establishment of the income tax, but prior to the institution of the Social Security Administration - more of government looking after itself before the people), are enrolled in a retirement plan. The original plan, titled the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) still exists, and until 1984, under the CSRS, Congressmen paid no Social Security tax and were not eligible for Social Security benefits. In 1987, a new retirement plan, the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) was introduced to replace CSRS for federal workers hired in 1984 or later.

In a discussion, it was pointed out to me that these aren’t true pensions, that Congressmen must contribute, so it’s more like a 401k (realize that Congress’ own website calls them “pensions”). To a degree, that is not incorrect (yes, a double-negative, intentionally), but they are not like any 401k plans I’ve ever seen or in which I’ve participated. Let’s look at a few numbers (only a few because, as with anything run by the government, the calculations are comedically complex). Since it’s been in place for about 40 years now, though there are some Congressmen still in office who may be covered under CSRS, we will focus on FERS.

Members of Congress* covered under FERS prior to December 31, 2012 contribute 1.3% of their salary to FERS. Using $174,000 as a baseline for their salary means they contribute $2,262 annually to their retirement accounts. Congress (meaning, we the people via our taxes) contributes 22%** annually, or $38,280 to their retirement accounts. Now, I’ve held a few jobs, and I know people who have been working a lot longer than me, but I’ve never heard of a company providing that kind of 401k “matching.” The congressmen put in a pittance of their salary and receive almost another full 1/4 of their salary in their retirement accounts from us. Most normal employers will provide an even match (or sometimes only a partial match) on what the employee contributes, and it is usually limited to matching on contributions somewhere between 4% and 6% of the employee’s annual base salary.

For Congressmen first covered January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013, Congressmen* contribute 3.1% of their pay and Congress (we the people) contributes 14.2%**. For those first covered after December 31, 2013, Congressmen* contribute 4.4% of their pay, and we the people contribute 15.2%**.

While these latter numbers start moving a little more toward what one might see in the private sector for a 401k, they are still far out of balance.

One might think this is bad enough, but, there’s more. In addition to this “pension,” under these retirement systems, a “Thrift Savings Plan” is also available to federal employees. This is more like a 401k with limitations similar to those of a private IRA. As of 2023, a member could invest up to $22,500 per year in a TSP. Under FERS, regardless of whether the member contributes, we the people put up 1% of the member’s base pay, and we the people will match the member’s contributions up to 5%.

So, we get to subsidize the base pension (FERS) by matching anywhere from 14% - 22%**, and then we also get to subsidize their TSP with another 5%. I don’t know about you, but I’d love private employers to be so generous!

Oh, did I mention that they are also required to participate in Social Security (I believe I did), at a rate of 6.2%, just like we the peons people. And I would be willing to wager that we the peons people are responsible for the 6.2% that any other employer pays as well.

I could go on and on about the calculations for their actual pension payouts, but I don’t think that’s really necessary at this point. If we take the “median” of 15.2% contributions to FERS, add 5% matching for the TSP, and throw in 6.2% for Social Security, based on a salary of $174,000 for 535 members of Congress, we the people are contributing $24,575,760 annually to Congress’ retirement fund. Granted, in the grand scheme (heh…scheme, scam) of money laundering wasteful government spending, this seems a pittance, but it is still our money.

It is interesting that this was originally implemented because it was believed that such a retirement plan:

would contribute to independence of thought and action, [be] an inducement for retirement for those of retiring age or with other infirmities, [and] bring into the legislative service a larger number of younger Members with fresh energy and new viewpoints concerning the economic, social, and political problems of the Nation.

U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on the Organization of Congress, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, report to accompany S. 2177, 79th Cong., 2nd sess., May 31, 1946, S.Rept. 79-1400 (Washington: GPO, 1946), p. 9.

At least that is what was alleged. Of course, we know that this has contributed neither to independence of thought and action nor to retirement at a reasonable age. But as with all failed government programs, there is neither desire nor due cause (on the part of our best-and-brightest elected representatives) to end this one in particular. Never mind that most of these people go in on an annual salary of less than $200,000 and come out millionaires who have no need of the pensions we provide them.

For this last reason, I don’t think ending them will have any effect either, but at least if there were no pensions, we the people could keep a little more of our money and maybe save more for our own retirements rather than funding pensions for people who perpetually plague our polity.

*While this all focused on members of Congress, all federal employees are eligible to participate in these pension plans, and all receive “matching funds” (I cannot in good conscience call the imbalance between employee and employer contributions “matching” without putting it in quotes). Considering the number of people currently under federal employment, we the people are contributing far more than the $24.5M estimated above just for our representatives’ pensions.

**Federal employees who are not Congressmen in many cases make different contributions, and their employing agencies also contribute different amounts than those for Congressmen. For instance, federal employees covered by FERS prior to December 31, 2012 contribute only 0.8% of pay and their agencies (we the people) contribute 16%, though for congressional employees who are not Congressmen, the employee contribution is 1.3% and the “employer” “match” is 23.9%. More numbers and detail can be found here: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL30631#ifn11

I have been meaning to write on this topic for a while, and finally, due to a “conversation” on X, I’m compelled to do so.

Something that has plagued America at least since the Progressive Era is federal government involvement in social issues and providing of “services.” The founders never expected nor intended the federal government to be a service organization. On the contrary, the powers and responsibilities of the federal government are, as Madison wrote in the Federalist No. 45, “few and defined”:

The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state.

The Federalist No. 45 - James Madison

Madison’s assertion is that the responsibilities of the federal government are primarily aimed at handling foreign relations and national defense, and that it is to be only very minimally involved in domestic matters.

Which brings me back to my discussion on X and the arguments/statements made by the other person, who, in her lack of understanding of our founding documents and principles, was rather adamant and vitriolic in asserting not only that the government should be providing services, but that, just because the Constitution doesn’t mention something doesn’t mean the government can’t or shouldn’t do it.

But that is precisely Madison’s point in what he penned. “Few and defined” means that there are not many and that they are specific, not implied. Even so, this person, who is fairly representative of the majority of the American population, believes otherwise. The fact that the Tenth Amendment reinforces the limitation of the federal government to that which is stated in the Constitution, that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” she persisted.

Such a person refuses to recognize that a court saying so does not change the Constitution. The Constitution is a binding legal contract between the States. It contains specific definitions of power delegated to the federal government, most of which establish a central organization (the federal government) as an external-facing entity intended to provide a unified approach to foreign relations. The courts can’t insert into the Constitution that which isn’t there.

That people expect the federal government to be involved in domestic affairs and solve our social ills is the reason government costs Americans so much, and also why it is so susceptible to financial corruption.

Government isn’t a service organization. Government should not be seen as or expected to be a service organization. Government is utterly incapable of providing any services at scale, and any time government is expected to do so, bureaucracy is put in place that becomes an end unto itself. Thus, that bureaucracy’s main purpose becomes self-preservation. It does not matter that it never solves the problem it was intended to address. It does not matter that it continues to grow and require more and more resources, both of a staffing and of a financial nature (and more staff means more finance). It is a black hole that sucks in tax dollars never to be seen again.

This is what Americans have not only come to accept, but it is what most Americans have come to expect. They want a government that will “do for the people what the people can’t do for themselves.” This also is absolutely contrary to everything for which the founding fathers stood and fought.

Government is not a charity. Madison stated so directly when he said, “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” Beyond this, along the lines of government and social issues, Madison, considered the “father of the Constitution,” also said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Such sentiment is not restricted to Madison alone. Jefferson, who penned the Declaration of Independence stated, “Still one thing more, fellow citizens, a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government; and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”

The founders believed government in general to exist for the purpose of protecting and preserving our rights and our right to private property ownership. Everything the government does now is contrary to this purpose, and it costs us dearly. It costs us financially (look at the billions in fraud and trillions in debt America incurs each year) and it costs us in liberty, despite the federal government (allegedly) being established to preserve liberty: “We the People of the United States, in Order to…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” (preamble to the U.S. Constitution).

Our federal government is no longer constitutional in any sense of the term, and our elected representatives don’t care. What’s more disturbing and detrimental, however, is that the vast majority of Americans don’t care either. It matters not to most that the federal government, which was (according to Madison in the Federalist No. 51) supposed to be smaller than any of the state governments, is now the largest employer in the country (and guess who foots that bill).

When we desire the government to provide anything other than protection of our rights and borders we end up with neither. The more we expect of government, the more it costs us of our wallets and our rights. Government is not our benefactor - it is a necessary evil. Again turning to Madison:

If Men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself.

Men are not angels, and those who now end up in government are further from that status than most others. Government no longer controls itself; it is up to the people, as it always has been, to do so. This is the nature of a representative government that operates with delegated powers. Those powers are delegated by the people, and the more we voluntarily give up, the more government will take. The only way to end the cycle is to stop giving up our liberties in order to have government provide for us, and that requires Americans waking up to the fact that the government isn’t a service organization.

Easter is upon us once again. For many, Easter is about a bunny kids eagerly await, much like Santa on Christmas, a bunny who hides colorful eggs full of treats. For some, it is the one day each year when church attendance is a must, and for many churches, it may be the day on which they account the greatest attendance of the year. Most Christians recognize that it is the day on which the resurrection of Jesus is celebrated.

What even many Christians miss, however, is that the day known as Easter, celebrated around the same time as the Jewish Passover each year, is absolutely crucial to Christianity (interestingly enough, the word “crucial” comes from the Latin word “crux” which means “cross”).

While people make all sorts of claims about Christianity and what it means, and the gospel of Christ coming and living a sinless life in order to offer Himself a spotless sacrifice on the cross, without His resurrection, which is celebrated on Easter, Christianity is pointless. As Paul boldly asserts:

Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

1 Corinthians 15:12-19, emphases mine

If Christ has not been raised, Christianity is a cruel hoax. All who have believed throughout the centuries since that fateful day when Jesus hung on the cross have believed in vain. If Jesus was not resurrected, the Christian faith is a lie. If Christ was not resurrected, Christians are, above all people, to be pitied. This is why Easter is, arguably, the most important holiday on the Christian calendar.

Thankfully, Paul also makes clear that the resurrection is not mere mythology. Paul goes on in the next verse to assert, “but now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep” (1 Corinthians 15:20). But why believe Paul’s statement? What makes him so trustworthy that such a claim should go without question?

In the same chapter, Paul speaks of the fullness, and simplicity, of the gospel. He says, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). Of course, this still isn’t necessarily convincing. However, Paul doesn’t stop here.

and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

1 Corinthians 15:5-8

Here Paul informs us that, not only had he experienced the risen Christ, but over five hundred people, most of whom were still alive at the time of Paul’s writing and could have refuted his claim, had seen the risen Savior. In a court of law, there would have been sufficient eyewitness evidence to establish the truth of this critical historical event.

And such should be sufficient for anyone. Many who claimed to follow Christ were willing to do so at the expense of their lives. That Jesus rose from the grave is well-attested, and that attestation serves also as evidence of the truth of what He taught when He walked with His disciples prior to His crucifixion.

He was born of a virgin according the Scriptures, died for our sins also according to the Scriptures, and was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, that we might be forgiven our sins and reconciled to God. For “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).
”He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification” (Romans 4:25).

Politics is downstream from culture. - Andrew Breitbart

A friend, who also is a substack writer, is fond of quoting Andrew Breitbart’s statement that “politics is downstream from culture.” The underlying meaning is true - politics are shaped by culture. As the culture shifts, so do politics, policy, and legislation. This has led to the aptly-named “culture war,” the virtual Hollywood-stylized battle between good and evil. There are now so many facets to this war - clashes over abortion, gay rights, religion in public schools, etc. - even beyond what originally was described by the term, it would be difficult to name them all. While conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, have managed to secure small victories in some minor battles, it appears they are losing the war. Why is this, and what can be done to turn the tide?

One of the reasons I’ve heard more than once is that progressives (I am reluctant to call leftists “liberals” because they really do not fit the classical definition of “liberal”) reach people emotionally. “It is not about obtaining intellectual assent so much as making a connection with the heart.” Conservatives’ refrain of “the facts don’t care about your feelings” is a turn-off to those of a more effusive disposition, and those on the right simply do not know how to relate, especially to the younger contingent of voters. It is true that progressives operate on a much more emotional level. Examples of their predilection toward affectivity abound on TikTok. Progressive leadership, much like marketing moguls, seem to understand how to wield the power catering to such sentimentality holds. Is this, however, truly power? Do such appeals, though quickly producing a desired result, create a lasting impression? Or does the phenomenon of the voracious public memory hole, and rampant leftist autophagy reveal an underlying weakness to this approach?

Conservatives do tend to flounder when it comes to making emotional political appeals. They lean more toward intellectual argumentation, and while facts may be presented in a logical and compelling manner, they often fall on deaf ears. The problem, then, is most definitely one of strategy, however, not in the sense that so many have proffered. As the majority of (not all) conservatives claim to be Christian, we should realize another deeper issue that prevents us reaching large swaths of the population with our message. We are definitely battling an issue of the heart, but not in the sense that the left views it. As Scripture tells us, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12). We are fighting a spiritual war, and the weapons of this world (physical and intellectual) are ill-suited to the purpose.

Despite all the talk of reaching people’s hearts rather than their minds, Jeremiah tells us that “the heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9). Reaching out emotionally to a wicked, diseased heart to win someone to a particular social or political position may have some minor, temporary effect, but in the end, it does not bring lasting change. It is like the Jews performing the ceremonial circumcision that was a sign of entering into covenant with God. As Paul wrote, “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God” (Rom. 2:28-29). Circumcision of the flesh did not bring about change in a man - it was intended to be an outward sign of a change that had already taken place within the man, as Paul here labels it, circumcision “of the heart.” God said to the Israelites, His chosen people, through the prophet Ezekiel:

And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them. And I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and do them. Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God. But as for those whose hearts go after their detestable things and abominations, I will bring their conduct down on their heads,” declares the Lord GOD.

Ezek. 11:19-21

The point is, in order to truly win people to a proper perspective, their hearts must first be changed - not by an emotional appeal, but by God. Jesus did not instruct Christians to “go and perform charitable works for all the world, taking up arms along side the social activists and fighting for the rights of the minority.” No. What did He tell us? “And He said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation’” (Mk. 16:15). Why? We live in a fallen creation. Without Christ, not only are people without salvation, but they are enslaved to sin and dead in their trespasses, as all Christians once were as well. Telling a sinner that he is sinning and should stop is like having a blind man bump into you and telling him to watch where he is going. Just as a blind man, by nature, cannot see where he is headed, a sinner, by nature, can do naught but sin.

Do I believe we can win the culture war? Certainly not by fighting it on the enemy’s terms. Those of faith also know that the culture war is only a vague reflection of the real war we are fighting. Regardless whether we can win the culture war, we are all called to battle. While using emotional appeals might bring temporary acquiescence, only the regeneration that comes by faith in Jesus Christ can render true change. Therefore, we must reach hearts, but not as the world does - we must reach them with the gospel if we wish to secure true victory.

I’ve written before of prescient parallels between Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and America today, especially with regard to government manipulation of markets and the socialistic tendencies of many in America today. Having decided to re-watch the movies (I wouldn’t mind re-reading the book, but it is quite long, and it will have to wait in line behind several others), something struck me about half way through the first installment.

Because the State has an agenda in “protecting” the steel industry, and because Hank Rearden has formulated a new metal alloy that is stronger, lighter, and less expensive than steel (which other companies are struggling to produce anyway), the government-run State Science Institute runs a smear campaign against Rearden and Rearden metal.

They trot out studies that claim the metal to be inferior and flawed, even dangerous. They malign Rearden as lying about the metal. They do all they can to discourage anyone from using Rearden metal.

When prominent businesswoman Dagny Taggart decides to use it anyway in order to replace the rails for Taggart Transcontinental’s trains, and oil magnate Ellis Wyatt backs them, the government goes to work trying to bring them down as well.

Does this sound familiar? One of the most poignant examples in recent history is the Covid jabs. Remember how the government wanted everyone to get injected, and other treatments, along with those who promoted them, were demonized? Surely you recall Ivermectin being demonized as “horse paste,” and the physicians who treated their patients with it being reprimanded, or worse, by state medical boards.

Of course, it has since become clear to anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex that the shots were not as “safe and effective” as the government claimed. Neither was Ivermectin the danger that the government claimed. As a matter of fact, the FDA lost a lawsuit over their social media posts falsely asserting that Ivermectin was dangerous and only for use in animals.

This was not a isolated occurrence. Additional instances of this type of behavior from the government are coming to light more and more often. Government agencies have for decades vilified saturated fats as dangerous and lauded seed and vegetable oils as “healthy.” The exact opposite is true.

Likewise, blood cholesterol levels have been blamed for heart disease, and cholesterol-lowering statin drugs pushed as the solution. Yet reality has revealed that cholesterol is not a causative factor in heart disease and statin drugs are deleterious to health.

The food pyramid of grains vs meats, “green” electricity vs fossil fuels, electric vehicles vs gas automobiles… The examples are myriad.

Government has grown to the extent that it believes it has the power and responsibility to pick, or more accurately, decide, the winners and losers in the market. They will fund their pet projects while endlessly regulating their competition, often making financially unsustainable the continued existence of the unfavored contender.

Government will turn brother against brother, neighbor against neighbor, friend against friend, all in the name of preserving and growing its own power. They will claim to stand against the rich and for the poor, but they will just make everyone poorer. They will poison you then look you square in the eye and tell you they didn’t, even when the evidence is clear. They will implement policies in the name of altruism that bring nothing but despair. Then they will tell you to applaud their heroism.

They stand in front of the pedestal on which the world is perched, and they wink at you, pretending as if they are Atlas propping it up and expecting you to play along with the charade.

And to their own detriment, the masses will indulge them. They continue to believe the lies, even when many John Galts* arise and expose the truth. Instead of praising or following those John Galts and regaining their liberty and freedom from being looted, the masses castigate the truth-bearers, because it is easier to shut their eyes to the truth than to admit they’d been deceived.

*John Galt is the character in the book who opens the eyes of those who produce so that they see how the government steals from them, uses them, to perpetuate their own power and to “care for” the non-producers.

Note: If you haven’t read Atlas Shrugged, I highly recommend you do. If you’re not up for reading such a long novel, then at least watch the movies which, while they aren’t perfect, at least capture the essence of the novel very well. I guarantee you will see a lot of parallels between Rand’s writing and our current state of affairs.

A few events over the past couple of years recently tickled my brain. I realized, not that I hadn’t in the past but I saw several closer to myself fall pray more recently, that many who claim the name of Christ often seem unable to differentiate between that which is from God and that which is not. Scripture warns many times over that false teachers and prophets will arise (Mt. 7:15-23, 24:11, 24; Acts 20:29-31; 2 Pet. 2; 1 Jn. 4:1-6, and many more) that people will chase after them, that people will seek experience, and that, if it was possible, even the elect would be deceived (Mt. 24:24). In light of this, I began wondering how we avoid being deceived or drawn away after that which is not of God, and why so many lack discernment.

As I mulled this phenomenon, I recalled some ministry marketing material* I received in the mail many years ago which brought to light an underlying factor. Allow me to elaborate.

In 1999, I opened my mailbox to find a solicitation for support. In this letter was a story about evangelism taking place in Malto. It explained that, up until then, their preaching of the gospel had shown no success.

Then one day, one of the Maler children died. “Miraculously,” when the family gathered that evening to bury her, the girl revived. At that time, she claimed she had gone to “the place of the dead,” but that God sent her back, with a seven-day time limit, to tell as many people as she could about Him. She then found the people of the Jesus Film Project and traveled with them to evangelize the Malto villages.

Now, having no evidence to prove this miracle, the letter offers the reader three “questions”, which they attribute to a since-passed popular preacher, to ascertain if a miracle is real:

* Check the facts carefully. We have. A Campus Crusade for Christ staff member who lives in the area -- a responsible and reliable man — verified all the facts.

* Check the focus. Does it glorify Jesus? Clearly, this miracle did. The girl made it very clear that people should follow Him.

* Check the fruit. Are people coming to Christ? They are. Hundreds of Malto people have repented, renounced Satan, and become active Christians.

Do these questions form a complete and accurate test? Was this, in fact, the miracle the letter claims it to be? They give answers that they assert confirm the legitimacy, but there is one criterion glaringly absent from this list of questions: Check the Scriptures. Does the event align with what God has revealed in His word?

In Luke, Jesus relates an interesting a story that is similar in all but one way:

“Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and *saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom…And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house— for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ But Abraham *said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Luke 16:19-31

Here, the rich man agonizing in, as the Malto girl termed the place she visited, “the place of the dead” (after all, like the girl, he too was unsaved), asks Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers so that they will not end up in the same torment. Abraham refuses stating that the rich man’s brothers “have Moses and the Prophets”, and that if they will not believe what God has already revealed, they will not believe “even if someone rises from the dead.” This should cause us to question, will God send someone back from the dead to preach the gospel? If He did, would He send an unbeliever back, when here he would not even send back someone who was saved? Clearly not.

While the letter asserts that all the necessary benchmarks were met, no one attempted to validate it by Scripture. Why? Why would Christians, instead of seeking the guidance God has already provided, rely on subjective measures to decide if something is truly from God?

Even Paul was not permitted to speak of that which he allegedly saw in heaven (most believe Paul was speaking of himself in this passage):

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven. And I know how such a man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows— was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.

2 Cor. 12:2-4

Thus, anyone claiming to have died and come back with a message should be treated with incredulity. After all, if the apostle Paul himself tells us that, regarding the things he saw and heard in paradise, “man is not permitted to speak,” are we really to believe someone today who contradicts this?

Nowhere in the Bible do we find anyone dying and coming back with any message. Yes, some people were raised from death, but none spoke of what they had seen or experienced beyond this life. And Scripture is our barometer.

In Matthew 4, Satan tempted Jesus three times, and setting an example for us, Jesus responded each time, “it is written.” Even being God Himself, Jesus turned to Scripture as the authority. Jesus is not the only one who provides such example. The apostle Paul wrote:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

2 Tim. 3:16-17

This same apostle also exhorts us:

Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

1 Cor. 4:6 (emphasis mine)

Paul beseeches us, do not go beyond Scripture. Scripture is the only measuring rod by which we can responsibly and reliably assess any movement or experience. Too many people get this turned around and want to interpret Scripture based on their experience or their emotions. It is these same people who balk at, or call Pharisees, those who would use Scripture as a gauge. Yet for this same behavior, Scripture commends the Bereans:

The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

Acts 17:10-11

Why were the Bereans considered noble-minded? Not because they checked Paul’s facts, questioned whether Paul was focused on Christ, nor whether Paul was bearing fruit. They were considered noble-minded because they checked Paul against Scripture.

Some might say, “If people are coming to Jesus, what does it matter? After all, the Bible says:

Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice."

Phil. 1:15-18

This is true - as long as Christ was preached, Paul didn’t care the motive of the person preaching. The problem is, motive is all that this passage addresses; it does not address content. While the motives were impure, the true Jesus and true God were preached. This is what Paul desired. When we attribute to God that which does not come from God, as does the letter in chronicling the miracle, or as do people who claim to have come back from the dead with a message, we are lying about God.

We cannot truly preach Christ by supporting the gospel with lies about God. This is why we must test our experiences.

It is easy to surrender to experientialism. We serve a God whose miraculous signs are abundantly documented in the Bible. It is natural that we should long to see the same, and that when something appears divine in its origin, we would want to attribute it to God. The verses in which Jesus warns of false teachers and prophets tell us these will also generate false manifestations. Therefore, we cannot simply “check the facts,” “check the focus,” and “check the fruit.” We cannot trust our emotions, for “the heart is more deceitful than all else” (Jer. 17:9). We must have a purely objective standard, and that standard is Scripture.

Our experiences must align with God’s revealed word. If they do not, we are compelled to question them. We cannot judge Scripture by our experiences, but rather, we must judge our experiences by Scripture. If we do not, we will be “carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from [our] own steadfastness” (2 Pet. 3:17b). Let us instead, as Paul encouraged, “examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thes. 5:21). How do we examine everything? By searching the Scriptures, as did the Bereans.

*Here are images of the letter I received back in 1999, in case you care to read them yourself

A few days ago, I wrote about the zero-sum balance between government and liberty. There is yet more to the story. Not only does our liberty depend upon limiting government, our fiscal health also relies upon restraining government reach.

Just as our freedoms and rights are impacted whenever the people clamor for the government to “do something,” so too do our wallets suffer the consequences of sacrificing our individualism on the altar of government.

Government can do little, if anything, without money. Thus, anytime government intervenes, whether it be to provide a service or to build and maintain infrastructure, funds must be found. And from where does the government garner its greenbacks? From you and me…through taxes.

The more the government “does,” the more money it requires. The more individual responsibility we abdicate to government, the more it costs us, both in freedom and finance.

What’s worse is that government is incredibly inefficient at running any type of program. Such programs often involve multiple levels of bureaucracy which add to cost and complexity, reduce how much of the funds actually service the program itself, and inevitably leads to fraud.

Don’t believe it? Look at annual medicare fraud. Look at all the illegal aliens receiving government assistance to which they have no right or claim. Look at the medicare, food, welfare, and child care fraud recently uncovered in Minnesota. And the list goes on. Government-run programs are fraught with fraud, both from within and from without.

At the state level this is bad, billions of dollars worth of bad. At the federal level? It is far worse. In addition to corrupt bureaucratic processes, tax dollars have been used to fund NGOs whose main purpose is to undermine the American people. So we’re paying for our own destruction. And that to the tune of tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars.

If we read the thoughts of our forebears, we find that our government is not intended to be a service organization. As Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, and he and 55 other founding fathers attested by signature, we are endowed by our Creator with particular rights, and “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...”

Notice, government is to secure our rights, not attend our needs. Those who fought for the independence of our country were also fighting for their individual independence - independence to forge their own way, to live their own lives. They fought for individualism and self-governance.

This does not mean they did not look after one another. What they did not do, however, was lay the onus of caring for their needs or their neighbors upon the government. Such can only lead (as we see in society today) to a form of tyranny. As I quoted from John Taylor of Caroline in my previous piece:

By our political theory, the people are supposed to be the patrons of the government, and not the government the patron of the people. A theoretical reversal of this principle, is a theoretical advance towards tyranny; and a practical reversal of it, either by an assumption of power by a government, to prescribe constitutional regulations to the people, or to use their property in donations to individuals or combinations, is in my view, both theoretical and actual tyranny.

Tyranny Unmasked, p. 145

This reversal of roles is a costly one, one that puts at stake our liberty and our wallets. While the founders believed the state governments should provide certain internal (each to its own State) infrastructure improvements, they never sought for the state to provide for individual “welfare.” Medicine has naught to do with the state. Income has naught to do with the state (other than it potentially being taxed). Other provisions and services were left to individuals and ingenuity.

There are also further corruptions and inefficiencies in the federal government taxing the people and then remanding monies back to the states. Such practice leads to an upending of the proper power hierarchy in the country (a topic for another time).

Private citizens and private (meaning, not state-owned or run) organizations are far more efficient and effective at providing goods, services, and yes, even charity, than government ever could be. And while individuals and corporations are certainly corruptible, the extent to which such corruption can cause damage comes nowhere near approaching the extent of damages which corruption of government services may cause.

What’s more, the greater spending power government is granted, the more it seeks. Once government gets a taste for expenditure, its appetite for such becomes insatiable. This is why the national debt continues to grow - it is not because the government does not collect enough taxes; it is because the government refuses to cut back on its spending. Government’s answer to every “problem,” and every failure, is spend more.

Thus, we enter a vicious cycle of spend, fail, spend more to deal with the failure, fail some more…. And on and on it goes. Giving government the responsibility that belongs to the individual is a losing proposition. It is, most assuredly, a high-stakes game that is not worth playing.

All too often today we hear cries that the (federal) government should “do something.” We hear it in response to shootings. We hear it in response to the economy. We hear it in response to homelessness, healthcare, and myriad other concerns. The prevailing pattern of thought is that government should be looking after many areas of our lives.

This mentality exhibits a failure to recognize the zero-sum game that is the balance between government power and our liberty. Most appear unaware that, whenever the federal government is given power to “do something,” that means we give up our liberty to do something else. It is truly a zero-sum game.

For instance, if we say that government cannot infringe on our right to freedom of speech, we have liberty. If we say government can pass laws that in some way limit that speech, for instance, in order to combat alleged disinformation, our liberty is being given up because the government now has the ability to say what is or isn’t disinformation and can work to prevent you saying something they consider “untrue” (let’s not go off into the rabbit hole that is government untruth).

If we say government cannot infringe on our right to “keep and bear” (own and carry) arms, we have liberty. If we allow government to pass laws restricting the types of arms we can purchase, the hoops one needs to jump through in order to purchase any particular arms, and/or where one can be in possession of those arms, we have sacrificed our liberty to government control.

If we say our healthcare is our business and government has no place interceding (it doesn’t - check the Constitution), we have liberty. If we decide government should have power over healthcare, whether it be to provide insurance for those who can’t afford it, or to protect us from a virus, there are powers the government must exercise to make such provision, and that means losing the ability to choose your doctor, or losing the liberty to decide whether to partake of a medication.

Giving the government responsibility for aspects of life in which it has no business interfering always means ceding liberty to make decisions for ourselves. It can be expressed as a simple equation:

Power = Liberty + Government Control

where Power is a fixed value. You can see that, in such an equation, if Liberty is increased, Government Control, of necessity, must decrease in order for Power to remain constant. The same is true in the other direction; in order for Government Control to increase, Liberty must decrease. The most amazing piece of the puzzle, which most people are missing, is that we are the ones who control the equation - not the government.

As John Taylor of Caroline wrote in Tyranny Unmasked:

By our political theory, the people are supposed to be the patrons of the government, and not the government the patron of the people. A theoretical reversal of this principle, is a theoretical advance towards tyranny; and a practical reversal of it, either by an assumption of power by a government, to prescribe constitutional regulations to the people, or to use their property in donations to individuals or combinations, is in my view, both theoretical and actual tyranny.

Tyranny Unmasked, p. 145 

As he recognized, power belongs to the people. The more power we are willing to grant the government, the more liberty we must relinquish. This too is why measures were taken by the founders to limit the government’s power. Contrary to what many may believe, the Bill of Rights does not grant or merely enumerate some of our rights - it specifically limits the government’s power to infringe our rights (and those rights are absolute, but that is a topic for another piece). This also is why the Ninth Amendment makes clear that the Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of our rights, and the Tenth Amendment makes clear that the federal government is limited specifically to the powers explicitly granted it by the Constitution, and that all other rights and powers are reserved “to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Unfortunately, through politics, propaganda, and poor public pedagogy, the populace has a paltry percipience of the Constitution and the very limited powers the federal government was intended to wield. We the people have over time, little by little, abnegated our power and our liberty to an ever growing government that has become a bureaucratic behemoth.

The founding fathers believed liberty to be of the utmost importance. It is listed in the Declaration of Independence as the second of only three rights listed, and its preservation and protection is also stated in the preamble to the Constitution to be one of the main purposes for the Union of the States.

Yes, in order to have government secure our liberty, we must first surrender some of our liberty to government, and therein lies the conundrum. How do you sacrifice your liberty to government in order to have government secure your liberty? By giving government only that power which it needs in order to perform its purpose.

James Madison rightly recognize that, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” The fact is, men are not angels, which is why we need to closely guard our liberty in the zero-sum game of liberty vs. government.

Note: I wrote and published this piece a while back, and I am resharing it today, with minor modification, both as a precursor to another piece I intend to write, and because it seems quite fitting and applicable to the current political climate in the United States.

Have you ever wondered how people like Mitch McConnell manage to maintain their office for decades? Perhaps you question why Republicans seem endlessly to vote for incumbents who regularly betray them? I know these are queries that have plagued me for many election cycles. This past primary election brought to light two concerning trends that may provide the answers to these quandaries.

Many watched during the most recent primaries as solid conservative candidates were beaten by lackluster incumbents or smooth-talking but clearly deceptive newcomers. I was particularly disappointed this go around as my home state of Texas had solid potential to replace Governor Abbott, who completely failed in his handling of Covid as well as to pass laws protecting children from hormone treatment and mutilation to rectify a psychological issue, and Dan Crenshaw who has been such a complete embarrassment in Congress that even special ops soldiers call him a traitor. How could this have happened? Why wouldn’t people select better options when given the chance?

One thing I have learned, not just now, but from elections past, is that the beast is self-preserving. Once a person makes it onto the party ticket and manages to get into office, if that elected official toes the party line, the party will do what it can to protect that person’s political future. I have seen this several times over with the RNC. The Republican party will spare no one in the battle to keep its selected officials in office. Many times the party itself has launched personal attacks against non-preferred candidates and will stop nothing short of destroying the life of a true threat. A local attorney running for a seat as family court judge was sued to keep her off the ballot, as well as having another Republican candidate encouraged to run in the primary against her for that particular seat rather than selecting another opponent. All of this was done in order to protect the party’s preferred candidate, giving no thought to what the people want. Anyone with eyes open should be able to see what this reveals - the party is no longer serving the people - it is self-serving, and self-preserving. This happened on a large scale with the advent of the Tea Party. The Tea Party was a viable, mainly conservative third party with a real chance of changing the face of politics, but the Republican party could not tolerate competition. The RNC worked hard to not just sideline but actually crush the Tea Party; they did this not because the Tea Party would be harmful for the people, but rather, because they were a threat to the system.

Conservatives need to work to take back the party so that the party will once again fill the ballot with true conservatives rather than RINOs. This is huge and a major hurdle for us to overcome. Unfortunately, this issue is only exacerbated by the other dilemma we conservatives face.

This other complication is actually two-pronged: conservative voters tend to be lazy, and conservative voters have a mistaken perception of how to win, which also could be characterized as a fear of losing. First let me address calling conservative voters “lazy.” I know it seems somewhat cruel, but there is little else that explains the voting habits of conservatives who ride under the Republican banner. It explains people walking into the primaries and simply selecting those who are already in office. It is easier to vote for a recognized name than to actually do any research about a candidate’s voting records or a candidate’s actual background. I know sometimes people will vote for a candidate because that candidate is a military veteran. I have news for those people - simply serving in the armed forces does not qualify someone for political office. While it is common to refer to those on the left as low-information voters (they are, but mainly in understanding the true ramifications of leftist policy - not in lack of knowledge of their candidates), in this sense, the right are the real low-information voters. But I digress. There is a more pernicious piece to this puzzle, the second prong to this predicament. Conservatives are afraid to vote for the candidate who would actually do the best job and represent their values. I was enlightened to this by a conversation I had at my local Republican precinct convention shortly after the primaries.

As we sat at the table awaiting the beginning of the session, those present from my precinct were discussing our dismay with the status quo. As the parley progressed, I expressed my disappointment in fellow conservatives having once again put Abbott and Crenshaw on the ticket to represent us. No one at the table was in disagreement with me, so I was astonished when one woman spoke up: “We couldn’t vote for Huffines; if we did, Beto would be our next governor. Huffines is too conservative, and there is no way he would have moved far enough left to win in the general election.” I was stunned by this assertion. After taking a moment to gather my senses, I calmly asked, “then how do you ever expect to change anything?” Her response was again staggering: “You can’t just vote for who you like or think would be best; you have to vote for who can win in the general election.” At this point, I realized further dialogue on the matter would be unproductive. I could not, at the time, wrap my mind around such a misguided musing.

It was only later that it occurred to me that this line of thinking is likely prevalent among many who claim conservatism. It’s a comfortable consolation to know that the person you vote for will likely win simply because that person has a perceived likelihood of winning. Unfortunately, such speculation does nothing to further conservatism nor to help reclaim our country from the left and the RINOs currently running it into the ground. If you too believe that this is the best way to make your vote count, consider the left. Does the left just vote for candidates who have the best chance of winning? Do you suppose the left elects people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, or anyone on “the Squad” because, during their primaries, they had the best chance of winning? Do Democrats vote for Bernie Sanders time and again because he is willing to move from far-left socialism toward the middle (or right) to be more appealing to conservatives and gain a better chance of sweeping a general election? The left votes for the candidates who most closely reflect their values and will enact the policies they would like to see in place. It is unfortunate that the policies that reflect those values typically end up destroying whatever municipality that employs them. Take a look at any city that has been run by Democrats for the past two decades and you will see. Regardless, Democrats vote their values, and though they sometimes lose, they often win, no matter how extreme the candidate. Conservatives need to do the same.  If we don’t, we will continue to see the same traitorous “Republicans” get into office on platitudes that never come to fruition. Instead, when they gain a majority, they sit contented on their laurels simply happy to keep the left from advancing their progressive agenda; and when in the minority, these same reeking RINOs impotently simper and whine about how the left is destroying the country, making further promises to execute on plans like McCarthy’s recent “Commitment to America” which in very many words says nothing.

Conservative cowardice accomplishes nothing. We must all, as we expect of our representatives in government, grow a spine and vote for those who will valiantly take up our values and work to make America the country of its founding. If we do not, we have no one to blame but ourselves for the dismal decline of “our democracy.”

While I don’t believe in or make New Year resolutions, I know many do. For a large part of the population, these often take the form of a “new you” in some way. Do you resolve to lose weight? Get in shape? Have a beach body by summer? Even have a new attitude? While there is nothing wrong with any of these, they require work of a nature that lead most to abandon their resolutions before the end of January.

What if I were to tell you that you could have a new you, but there would be no counting calories, avoiding foods, or stepping on a scale? What if I told you you could have a new heart? New spirit? New outlook? New life? You can, and getting started is very easy - all it takes…is faith.

God in the Old Testament promised the Israelites:

And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them. And I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and do them. Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God. - Ezekiel 11:19-20

Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. - Ezekiel 36:26-27

This was a description of the change God promised to bring about, so that they might draw near to Him and be His people, part of His kingdom.

Jesus explained to Nicodemus, one of the religious rulers of His time, the necessity for this change, when He said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3 - some translations have “anew” in place of “again”). Nicodemus had difficulty comprehending, so Jesus continued:

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.

John 3:5-8

We cannot understand every aspect of it, nor are we expected to understand; just as Jesus did not expect Nicodemus (or us) to understand every aspect of the wind. That doesn’t negate the truth of Jesus’ statement. If we are to enter into God’s kingdom, we must be made anew by God. This is where many get the cart before the horse. So many believe they need to change themselves in order to enter the kingdom - this is incorrect. We simply need have faith, God will make the change in us, as He promised so long ago to those He saved from their slavery in Egypt.

And when God changes you, your whole life changes. When you have a new heart, a new spirit, you view everything in a new way. Your thinking changes: “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect” (Romans 12:2).

This renewal sets us right with God and gives us access to His presence:

But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

Ephesians 2:13-16, emphasis mine

Becoming new is not about what you do, but what He has done. This new you sets aside the old and moves forward in a better way, a unified way:

Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him— a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.

Colossians 3:9-11

All you need to is receive Christ by faith. When the jailer asked Paul, “what must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30), Paul’s response was simple: “believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). Change, and a desire to be different, will follow.

I am not going to give you any “special words” or some “sinner’s prayer” to say. All you need do is recognize your own insufficiency and talk to Him. He knows your heart (1 Samuel 16:7). He knows every word before it is on your lips (Psalm 139:4). All you need do is ask, and He will give you a new you, just as eventually, He will make all things new: “And He who sits on the throne said, ‘Behold, I am making all things new.’ And He said, ‘Write, for these words are faithful and true’” (Revelation 21:5).

Will you start the New Year with a new you?

It happened in a town whose name literally translates as “house of bread.” A babe was born, one who would later describe Himself as “the bread of life,” and “the bread of God…which comes down out of heaven” (John 6:32-35).

In that little town of Bethlehem, the Lord of all creation humbled Himself, laying aside the glory He had with His Father, taking the form of flesh to be born of a virgin who lay Him in an animal feeding trough.

He who created the world stepped down from His throne to save from condemnation those who would receive Him. Instead of a golden diadem, He was crowned with a ring of thorns and hung on a cross to die for the sin of the world.

Though He had never Himself sinned, He willingly gave His life to save those who had, to free from slavery to sin whomever would receive Him. His act was not in vain.

The death of Jesus stunned His followers. At first they were bewildered, not having understood all He had taught them. Until…they found His sealed and heavily-guarded tomb open and empty, and He once again came to them, verifying His identity by the holes in His hands.

Following His appearance to over 500 eyewitnesses, the small group of disciples He left behind turned the world upside down simply by preaching His message - the kingdom of God has drawn near, our savior has come, and He died on the cross to reconcile us to God.

This message resonated so strongly throughout history that even our calendar was conformed to measure years from His birth (though inaccurately, as the specific date remains unknown). Whether you subscribe to using BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini - year of our Lord), or BCE (before common era) and CE (common era), our years are measured from the birth of Jesus.

It is this turning point in history, the crux of human existence, that we celebrate on Christmas day. As the angels proclaimed to some shepherds nearby, “I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:10-11).

Indeed, that day the Messiah, long prophesied by those such as Isaiah, came to dwell among men. As Matthew describes, He was “‘Immanuel,’ which translated means, ‘God with us’” (Matthew 1:23).

He was rejected by many, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name” (John. 1:12).

He still does this today. Those who reject Him remain under condemnation (this is already their situation - John 3:36), not because they reject Him, but because of their sin. But those who hear Jesus’ words and believe Him who sent Jesus has eternal life and does not come into condemnation, but has passed out of death into life (John 5:24).

This good news, that God loved us so much that, while we were yet sinners, He sent His Son to die for us, is reason for celebration and contemplation. And it is this act of God, of sending His Son to be born in the likeness of human flesh, that we celebrate on Christmas day.

Give praise and thanks to God for this immeasurable act of mercy, a gift we did not deserve nor could we ever earn. Praise Him on Christmas, and remember the reason we celebrate is not because of the gifts under the tree, but because of the gift of His grace which is of far greater value than money could ever purchase.

Have a very merry and blessed Christmas!

Tomorrow we celebrate the coming of our Lord, His advent. Matthew echoed Isaiah, writing that He would be called Immanuel, God with us (Matthew 1:23). The Son of God, every bit God Himself, humbly clothed Himself with flesh, coming to dwell among His creation, experiencing the life which we experience (Philippians 2:5-8).

Yet unlike us, He was perfectly obedient to God, His Father; He was without sin (2 Corinthians 5:21).

John the Baptist called Him “the Lamb of God,” and proclaimed that He would take away the sin of the world (John 1:29). He was called this, because, as lambs were required for sacrifice over and again to cover the sins of Israel, He would be sacrificed.

Yet unlike those prior lambs, which were required to be without any outward markings or imperfections, and which could only provide a temporary covering for sin, He was inwardly “without spot or blemish” (1 Peter 1:19), and having fulfilled God’s law, is able to wipe away the sin of those who receive Him.

His birth, which we celebrate, as well as His suffering and death, were foretold throughout the Old Testament, long before His advent. Thus when God’s messenger appeared to shepherds to announce His birth, it was truly “good news of great joy” being proclaimed (Luke 2:10).

Now, as we gather to extol His first arrival, let us give Him glory, and in that same joy shared by the shepherds, also look forward to His coming again to receive His own unto Himself.

May you and yours have a very merry and blessed Christmas!

I find it refreshing at this time of year to hear the carol “Joy to the World”, among others, being played or sung in Christmas specials and in public. It seems to me many sing it without recognizing the import of the lyrics:

Joy to the world, the Lord is come!

Let earth receive her King;

let ev’ry heart prepare him room

and heav’n and nature sing,

and heav’n and nature sing,

and heav’n, and heav’n and nature sing.

Joy to the earth, the Savior reigns!

Let men their songs employ,

while fields and floods, rocks, hills, and plains,

repeat the sounding joy,

repeat the sounding joy,

repeat, repeat the sounding joy.

No more let sins and sorrows grow

nor thorns infest the ground;

he comes to make his blessings flow

far as the curse is found,

far as the curse is found,

far as, far as the curse is found.

He rules the world with truth and grace

and makes the nations prove

the glories of his righteousness

and wonders of his love,

and wonders of his love,

and wonders, wonders of his love.

This beautiful hymn echos the words of the angel to the shepherds that one starry night just over 2000 years ago:

But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.

Luke 2:10

This is good news of great joy! This is the reason to celebrate Christmas. So many have lost sight of this and are left asking questions such as: “a Savior? A Savior for what, or from what?” “Who wants a ‘lord’? Didn’t we do away with those when the feudal system ended?”

The fact is, whether people now acknowledge Him as such or not, Jesus is Lord, and one day, all will recognize it:

For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Phil. 2:9-11

So, from what did He come to save us? From our sin, as the song says, “no more let sins and sorrows grow.” Though at times we don’t like to admit it, even the irreligious know that they commit acts that are wrong, that are against God, that are sinful. Rejection of God, more often than not, is the result of preferring to live in and enjoy our own sinfulness:

This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

Jn. 3:19-21

We all have a proclivity to sin. It is simply part of our being, and when we give in to sin, we make ourselves slaves to it:

Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

Jn. 8:34

Jesus came to set us free from that slavery. This is the true meaning of the oft-cited phrase, “…the truth shall set you free.” Most repeat this phrase talking about freeing one’s conscience from a lie, but there is a deeper meaning:

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Jn. 14:6

Jesus is the truth. It is not when we tell the truth that we are free; it is when we know the truth, when we know Him. He is the truth that sets us free, free from slavery, free to be obedient to God:

Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

Jn. 8:34-36

This is truly cause for celebration. This is reason for “heav’n and nature” to sing. Through Jesus come truth and grace (Jn. 1:17), as the song recites. Through Him we are set free.

Why do we celebrate Christmas? Because the Lord is come! Let earth receive her King. For unto us a Savior has been born, who is Christ, the Lord, and He has come to set us free. Let us rejoice!

’Tis the season once again when people rush around searching for the perfect present or that last minute gift, driving like jerks on jam-packed roadways, braving clamoring crowds in department stores, and getting almost all of their pre-New-Year’s-resolution exercise from third-digit phalangeal extensions. As they wander the hallowed halls of shopping malls, seasonal songs serenade them softly from speakers suspended overhead. These calming carols often go unheard, drowned in the cacophony of crazed consumers clashing over the latest and greatest toys and tech. It’s no wonder in the midst of this madness, that soothing sounds like Silent Night, and lilting lyrics such as “God rest ye merry gentlemen” would fall on deaf ears.

The time-honored tradition of giving gifts at this time of year is unlikely to terminate, nor should it. But merriment and mirth long ago gave way to mindlessness and mayhem. Is it possible that this is because most are so captivated by the commercialism as to lose sight of the lore that launched it?

Perhaps it would behoove us all to slow down and consider the wisdom in these words:

God rest ye merry gentlemen
Let nothing you dismay
For Jesus Christ our Saviour
Was born on Christmas Day
To save us all from Satan's pow'r
When we were gone astray
O tidings of comfort and joy
Comfort and joy
O tidings of comfort and joy

From God our Heavenly Father
A blessed Angel came;
And unto certain shepherds
Brought tidings of the same,
How that in Bethlehem was born
The Son of God by Name.
O tidings of comfort and joy,
Comfort and joy
O tidings of comfort and joy

This poetic passage proclaims a particularly profound narrative. In addition to conveying consolation and concord, it expounds an event that should excite and exhilarate. It repeats the report heralded by angels to some Semitic shepherds overseeing their sheep long ago in a distant land. This miraculous message is one of hope, one of freedom, and one of joy.

Despite many disavowing the veracity of the angels’ announcement, this divine declaration is the basis for our ballyhoo. Christmas is not about the cash-back you’re earning on your credit cards. It’s not about the tremendous truckload of tidily-wrapped toys under the tree. It is about a gift, the greatest gift ever granted; the gift of God to His creation, to be emancipated from our enslavement to sin, and ushered into the commonwealth of the Creator.

That this statement of salvation was first to shepherds is intriguing and amusing, as Jesus is often referenced in terms they would understand, most notably by John the Baptist when he bore witness saying, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29b). The concept here hearkens back to the Jewish Passover in which lambs were sacrificed so God would pass over the Israelites’ homes when He went through Egypt to strike down all the firstborn and to set free the Hebrews from slavery (Exodus 12:1-32). It also alludes to the story of Abraham and Isaac in which God provided the lamb for their sacrificial offering (Genesis 22:1-19). In it as well is a depiction of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur - Leviticus 16) in which a sacrifice was made to cover the sins of Israel. Thus the Son of God, who by nature is God Himself, the Savior of man, took on Himself the nature of that which He created, and became the sacrifice provided by God to spare us from a more hideous end.

In similar manner, He is likened to a Shepherd that leads His flock, and as such, is the door through which we can enter His Kingdom. As Scripture relates it:

So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.

John 10:7-10

While many people posit a plethora of potential paths to paradise, Jesus Himself teaches otherwise - “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.’” (John 14:6) - and His disciples concur, declaring - “there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

One day, all will bow, recognize His sovereignty, and give praises to God (Romans 14:11), though for many that confession will come too late. The time is now to see your sinfulness and embrace the everlasting endowment given us by God. Then, and only then, can true “comfort and joy,” that expressed in this touching tune, be tasted. Therefore I beseech you, obey the closing lyrics of this classic carol, and:

Now to the Lord sing praises,
All you within this place,
And with true love and brotherhood
Each other now embrace;
This holy tide of Christmas
All other doth efface.
O tidings of comfort and joy,
Comfort and joy
O tidings of comfort and joy

Black Friday, Cyber Monday, oh what a ploy!
All to tempt people to buy Christmas joy.
People are putting up their decorations,
though many are dreading holiday celebrations.

Children anticipate a jolly man with some gifts,
but do they even know why this special day exists?
We often count blessings by dollars and friends,
but the gift that costs least is the one with no end.

So put up your tree, no do not delay,
For soon we will gather for Christmas day.
Yet do not forget this one thing that’s true,
This day is about One who gives life to you!

Far in the east was born a small babe,
And when He was grown, His life He gave;
To rid you of sin, and make your heart new.
This is the story I bring unto you.

What better way to lead into a story about Christmas than with some (bad) poetry? People often lament how commercialized Christmas has become. With notices of sales beginning earlier each year, and decorations going up in stores, many even before Halloween, is it any wonder? Most rarely take note of why we should be celebrating, and many miss the depth of the biblical passages that declare the glory of this time, as much is often lost in translation.

This is the time of year nativity scenes abound, we hear often the story of the birth of Jesus Christ as told in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, and we are reminded of the advent of  Emmanuel, "God with us." Those two New Testament books say much of that child laid in the manger; nevertheless, instead of these, I’d like to discuss a single verse that, while using few words, paints a picture worth more than a thousand.

Though this verse is not generally thought of as a Christmas verse, it, perhaps more than any other, encapsulates in its brevity what Christmas really is all about. The profundity of this simple verse, used regularly as evidence of the deity of the Christ, is often very much underestimated. What do I mean? Follow along.

John wrote his gospel primarily to The Jews, a people with a robust history of which they were very familiar. John knew this and was able to tailor his imagery to the purpose of stirring their hearts. For this reason, John used a particular word in this verse, the Greek word often translated in English as "dwelt." There is much more to this word, however, than meets the modern eye.

This word we read as "dwelt" in the English is the Greek word, "ἐσκήνωσεν" (eskenosen - es-kay-nō-sen). The root of this word is "σκηνὴ" (skene/skay-nay - ἡ σκηνὴ {he [hay] skene} with the definite article). What is so special about this word? A little history will help our understanding.

In the third century B.C., seventy-two scholars undertook the task of translating the Old Testament scriptures from Hebrew to Greek. Because of the number of translators, this work has come to be known as the Septuagint. In the New Testament, more often than not, when Jesus quoted the Scriptures, his quotes came directly from the Septuagint. In the Septuagint, "he skene" referred to the tabernacle. This word is used in reference to the “tabernacle” elsewhere in the New Testament as well. Why is this important?

Early in the history of the tribes of Israel, God had saved the Israelites from the Egyptians who pursued them, bringing them on dry land through the Red Sea which shortly after swallowed the Egyptian armies. Following this, while they were wandering in the desert, God gave Moses the plans for the tabernacle. The Israelites constructed the tabernacle according to God's precise instruction. God then directed the sons of Israel to set up their tents around the tabernacle:

Now the LORD spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, “The sons of Israel shall camp, each by his own standard, with the banners of their fathers’ households; they shall camp around the tent of meeting at a distance. Now those who camp on the east side toward the sunrise shall be of the standard of the camp of Judah…Those who camp next to him shall be the tribe of Issachar…Then comes the tribe of Zebulun…

“On the south side shall be the standard of the camp of Reuben…Those who camp next to him shall be the tribe of Simeon…Then comes the tribe of Gad…

“On the west side shall be the standard of the camp of Ephraim…Next to him shall be the tribe of Manasseh…Then comes the tribe of Benjamin…

“On the north side shall be the standard of the camp of Dan…Those who camp next to him shall be the tribe of Asher…Then comes the tribe of Naphtali…

Numbers 2:1-31 (NASB)

The twelve tribes encamped around the tabernacle, three on the east, three on the south, three on the west, and three on the north. The tabernacle would be in the middle of their encampments, quite literally at the center of their lives. Not only was the tabernacle at the center of their lives, but there God's presence rested visibly amongst them: "For throughout all their journeys, the cloud of the LORD was on the tabernacle by day, and there was fire in it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel." - Exodus 40:38 (NASB)

Consider what that was like for the Hebrews: God was literally dwelling, visibly, among them in the tabernacle. He was in their midst. God truly was “with them.” This continued as long as the Israelites wandered. Only after the sons of Israel were established in their own land, and the temple was built, did God’s visible presence depart.

Fast-forward to the Gospel of John. The tribes of Israel, rather than having their own land, are dispersed among the gentiles. They knew the promises of God, and did have expectation that one day God would return to once again establish His kingdom. Here the apostle tells the Jews that this Word-become-flesh "tabernacled" among them. Imagine now the picture this would evoke in the mind of a Jew familiar with the history? Ponder the emotion such a statement would generate for those to whom John wrote. Once again God had come to live among His people, and this time, in a much more personal way. Instead of a pillar of fire or smoke rising up from a tent, God was walking among them in human form.

For the Jews to whom John penned his gospel, the idea of "God with us" struck much more of a chord than the English with which we are familiar. He had come once again to live among His people and to save them, only this time instead of saving them from an earthly foe like the Egyptians, He would save them from their sin. As John the Baptist later in the chapter says of Jesus, “‘Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!’” (Jn. 1:29). This is the one at whose arrival the angel said to the shepherds, “‘Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord’” (Lk. 2:10).

There is nothing at all wrong about gathering with family, sharing meals and stories, and giving gifts. Let us not forget, however, that most amazing gift of all, the gift God gave us in Jesus, “God with us,” who came as a sacrifice to free us from our bondage to sin and to reconcile us with God. We have no greater cause for celebration than the free gift of salvation that comes by faith in Jesus Christ: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). Enjoy your presents, enjoy your family, and most importantly, enjoy the peace of Christ this Christmas.

I have much for which I am thankful - family, friend, those of you brave or bored enough to read my ramblings. We often at Thanksgiving ask the question, “for what are you thankful?” and we speak of “giving thanks.” Something many don’t consider is, if we are the givers of thanks, who is the recipient?

Along those lines, perhaps it should be asked, what is “thanks” and what does it mean to “give thanks”? Is it just as matter of being happy for something in your life? Or is there something more to it?

I thought perhaps it would behoove us to look at a dictionary definition of “thanks”:

Expression of gratitude; an acknowledgment made to express a sense of favor or kindness received.

Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

There is something that should stand out to us in this definition - thanks is offered in response to “favor or kindness received.” Again, if we have received a favor or kindness, there must be a giver of that favor or kindness. After reading this, I decided to go one step further and look up “Thanksgiving”:

A public celebration of divine goodness; also, a day set apart for religious services, specially to acknowledge the goodness of God, either in any remarkable deliverance from calamities or danger, or in the ordinary dispensation of his bounties.

Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

(the modern Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as “a public acknowledgment or celebration of divine goodness”)

And now we arrive at the crux of the matter. God is the one from whom we receive “favor of kindness,” and it is to Him we should be rendering our thanks! Many say they are “thankful” for what they have, though that “thanksgiving” is often expressed as a general “thankfulness” lacking an object at which it is directed. This kind of thanks is more just a happiness that something is “had” (whether something owned, someone present in one’s life, or some event experienced), but it is not truly thankfulness, it is not thanks directed at the One from whom all things flow.

Let us not forget to thank God on this Thanksgiving, as our founding fathers gave thanks to Him for the bounty they received from the land and the sea. I will give thanks to God for you - my readers - and I will give thanks for my family and friends, and I will give thanks simply because He is God and I understand that all I have is by His hand.

I wish you all a very happy and blessed Thanksgiving!

As we gather this year for the holidays, I have much for which I am thankful - family, friends, those of you brave or bored enough to read my ramblings. And as I sit rambling this morning, I am pondering the idea of thankfulness.

What does it mean to be thankful? According to the dictionary, thankfulness is:

an expression of appreciation or gratitude or an acknowledgment of services or favours given

There is something that should stand out to us in this definition - thanks is offered in response to “services or favours given.” That these things are given necessarily implies a giver. After reading this, I decided to go one step further and look up “thanksgiving”:

the act of giving thanks; grateful acknowledgment of benefits or favors, especially to God.

Ah, that's the ticket! God is the giver! While many may say they are “thankful” for what they have, the “thanksgiving” is often expressed as a general “thankfulness” lacking an object at which it is directed. This kind of thanks is more just a happiness that something is “had” (whether something we own or someone or some event in our lives), but it is not truly thankfulness, it is not thanks directed at the One from whom all things flow.

Along these lines, let me share with you George Washington’s 1798 Thanksgiving Proclamation:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be—That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks—for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation—for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war—for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed—for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted—for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions—to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually—to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed—to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord—To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us—and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Thanksgiving Proclamation, 3 October 1789

I pray that all in our country, no matter their political leanings, will consider these wise words of our country’s first president. Our founding fathers gave thanks to God for all he had done to help establish this great nation. I will give thanks to God for you - my readers - and I will give thanks for my family and friends, and I will give thanks simply because He is God and I know that all I have is by His hand. I pray you also will give thanks to God, because whatever our circumstances, there is always something for which to be thankful.

Morning, November 18

“A spring shut up, a fountain sealed.” Song of Solomon 4:12

In this metaphor, which has reference to the inner life of a believer, we have very plainly the idea of secrecy. It is a spring shut up: just as there were springs in the East, over which an edifice was built, so that none could reach them save those who knew the secret entrance; so is the heart of a believer when it is renewed by grace: there is a mysterious life within which no human skill can touch. It is a secret which no other man knoweth; nay, which the very man who is the possessor of it cannot tell to his neighbour. The text includes not only secrecy, but separation. It is not the common spring, of which every passer-by may drink, it is one kept and preserved from all others; it is a fountain bearing a particular mark- a king’s royal seal, so that all can perceive that it is not a common fountain, but a fountain owned by a proprietor, and placed specially by itself alone. So is it with the spiritual life. The chosen of God were separated in the eternal decree; they were separated by God in the day of redemption; and they are separated by the possession of a life which others have not; and it is impossible for them to feel at home with the world, or to delight in its pleasures. There is also the idea of sacredness. The spring shut up is preserved for the use of some special person: and such is the Christian’s heart. It is a spring kept for Jesus. Every Christian should feel that he has God’s seal upon him- and he should be able to say with Paul, “From henceforth let no man trouble me, for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” Another idea is prominent- it is that of security. Oh! how sure and safe is the inner life of the believer! If all the powers of earth and hell could combine against it, that immortal principle must still exist, for He who gave it pledged His life for its preservation. And who “is He that shall harm you,” when God is your protector?

According to popular news outlets and politicians, the current federal government shutdown may cause a delay or complete halt of food stamp distribution to those receiving government assistance. According to NPR, the SNAP program will run out of funds on Nov. 1. Wide-spread panic and anger has ensued. Many have taken to social media to rant about how they will no longer be able to feed their families, or how horrible one political party or another is for allowing this to happen.

Many who do not purchase groceries at government expense are decrying the flaws in the system, how such a thing should never be able to happen, and that no one should have to go without food.

Interestingly enough, this crisis du jour has brought to light some rather troubling statistics. 42 million people are currently receiving food assistance from the public treasury. That is a whopping 12.3% of people in the country who get groceries at government expense.

But there is more lurking below the surface of that number, because not all 42 million beneficiaries of those benefits are even Americans. As a matter of fact, many of those foreign g(r)iftees aren’t even in the country legally.

Yes there are Americans on the roll as well, some truly struggling and some not. What are we as a country to do?

Many are saying we need better controls, checks to ensure those using the system have actual need of it, and that they are Americans. Some believe we just need to throw more money at it. I have a different opinion: end it. Yes, you read that correctly - end the program altogether, and no, do not replace it.

I’m heartless you say? I don’t care that people may go without? Hardly.

Prior to the Great Depression, the SNAP program didn’t exist. Since then, untold billions (trillions? More?) have been thrown at this program, yet the number of people receiving assistance seems never to go down, only up. As a matter of fact, government spending for EBT has more than doubled just since 2019!

The fact is, government shouldn’t be involved in such charitable work at all. To quote James Madison, father of the Constitution, “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government. It would puzzle any gentleman to lay his finger on any part of the Constitution which would authorize the government to interpose in the relief of…sufferers.”

I can hear the retort, “well, that’s not very Christian of you.” Such sentiment comes from those reading the Gospel of Karl:

Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you had government give Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you had the government give Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you had the government invite Me in and give me housing; I was sick, and you had government give Me healthcare.

Such adherents give no thought to the fact that their position is coercing those who work and earn a living to support those who do not. Lost as well in their utopian altruism is that some of those whose hard-earned wages are being garnished to aid others are themselves struggling to put food on their own family’s dinner table.

This benighted beneficence could rightly be called pilferanthropy. Charity at gunpoint is not charity at all - it is robbery (in legal terms, “theft with violence or threat of violence involved”). This is the essence of using the government for charity.

“But Jesus, and Christianity…”

Contrary to the apocryphal Gospel of Karl mentioned above, that is not at all what Jesus said. Jesus would not have us use government to force those who have give to those who have not. Jesus was, in fact, not a socialist.

Let’s look at what Jesus actually taught:

Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;…I was sick, and you visited Me…”

Mt. 25:34-36, emphases mine

Notice, Jesus spoke directly to the people saying it was “you” (not the government) who gave Him to eat, to drink, invited Him in… Government was not involved.

“But what shall we do for those in need?” Help them. Imagine if the multitude of people railing on social media about having to do something to feed those who don’t have would each just give a little. How about $100 per post? If there are a million people making such posts online, that would add up to $100 million dollars. And it could be given voluntarily rather than taken by force.

Aside from the already-stated fact that using government to fund such charitable endeavors amounts to little more than robbery, government is horribly inefficient (and inept) at administering such programs. A large percentage of any such monies collected is inevitably consumed by bureaucracy and administrative overhead.

When handled privately, whether directly by individuals, or through charitable or religious organizations, such expense is (usually) minimized, and the majority of donations goes to those in need.*

There is much more that can be said about dependence upon government to feed you (how then they can also starve you), or how such programs (dis)incentivize hard work when workers realize others reap the benefits of their labor (and those who don’t labor realize they can receive benefits without work), but perhaps Jefferson summed it up best:

Still one thing more, fellow citizens, a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government; and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

It is incumbent upon the individual to seek his or her own “improvement” and welfare - not the government. It is immoral for government to “take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned,” especially when it is done in order to give that bread to others.

We really should return to this vision of the founders, and even more importantly, the perspective of Scripture, and restore the practice of helping your neighbor (and family) directly rather than at the barrel of a gun.

*That there are charities and other organizations that are corrupt and steal donations (and I wasn’t even thinking of the Clinton Foundation when I wrote this), as well as some who spend far more on salaries and administrivia than reaches the intended beneficiaries, for the most part, private organizations are far more efficient and effective at handling charitable pursuits than government can ever hope to be.