two videos on the Government’s role

first from Iain Murray a nice economic fisking of a you tube government health care video

and next an uplifting musical piece from allahpundit

group think

the inability to reconsider (or even see) built in assumptions is something that is very interesting to me about people. @texaszman pointed to this interesting article on twitter this morning.

check out this bit here:

My theory—call it the “Oakley effect”—is that really smart people often don’t know how to accept and react constructively to criticism.  (A neuroscientist might say they “have underdeveloped neurocircuitry for integrating negatively valenced stimuli.”)  This is because smart people are whizzes at problems that only need one person to figure out.  Indeed, people are evaluated from kindergarten through college prep SATs on the basis of such “single solver” problems.  If you are often or nearly always right with these kinds of problems, your increased confidence in your own abilities would be accompanied by an inadvertent decrease in your capacity to deal with criticism.  After all, your experience would have shown that your critics were usually wrong.

But most large-scale societal issues are not single solver problems.  They are so richly complex that no single person can faultlessly teach him or herself all the key concepts, which are often both contradictory and important.  Yes, smart people have an advantage in dealing with such problems, because they’ve got natural brain-power that allows them to hold many factors in mind at once, bringing formidable problem-solving skills to bear.  But smart people have a natural disadvantage, too: they’re not used to changing their thinking in response to criticism when they get things wrong.

In fact, natural smarties—the intellectual elite—often don’t seem to learn the art of soliciting the criticism necessary to grasp the core issues of a complex problem, and then making vital adaptations as a result.  Instead, they fall in naturally with people who admire, rather than are critical, of their thinking.  This further strengthens their conviction they are right even as it distances them from people of very different backgrounds who grasp very different, but no less crucial aspects of complex problems. That’s why the intellectual elite is often branded by those from other groups as out of touch.

I think the tendency to fall in with people who agree with us and admire our thinking is common to all humans.

Having our assumptions/worldview challenged is an unpleasant experience. If we really know/like/admire/respect the challenger, we will put up with it a few times, but eventually we will stay out of range of the challenge. If we don’t know/like/admire/respect the challenger then he or she will get one unsuccessful crack at getting us to reexamine our worldview.

It is a rare person who can stand getting their assumptions challenged on a regular basis. It is an even rarer person who can even bear the thought of recalibrating their assumptions/worldview in light of new evidence. It is an exceedingly rare person who can change their way of thinking about even the smallest of things.

what would the application be for a person who wants to persuade people to take a particular course of action or support a particular idea?

does it matter if the course of action or idea is counterintuitive?

does it matter if the course of action or idea is extremely unpopular?

does it matter if following the course of action or supporting the idea will lead to personal discomfort or danger to the follower and their family?

just

asking

the

question.

Obviously, something supernatural would have to be at work for anyone to choose to follow that course of action or support that idea, wouldn’t it?

wedding yesterday

the daughter of a good friend of ours was married yesterday.

it was an outdoor wedding at Kindred Oaks in Leander/Georgetown/way north area. It was lovely and fun. the weather cooperated in a big way and it wasn’t too hot.

danger of moralistic deism

here is Matt Chandler talking about the necessity of the centrality of the Gospel and the danger when it is assumed.

Love that last line.

“But you don’t put God in your debt. I know this because really really faithful men in the Scripture have it go really really bad for them.”

hat tip to Timmy Brister.

Do people have free will?

Andrew Naselli takes a long look at the question of free will over here. Fascinating stuff. take some time this weekend to explore it.

Here is the introduction to get you started:

Non-Christians and Christians alike often give the same answer to difficult questions like these: Why did God allow sin in the first place? Why does God save some people and not others? Why does God send people to hell? Why can living like a Christian be so frustrating? The immediate solution often suggested is simple: “free will.” To many people, it’s a satisfying answer: “Oh, that makes sense. Yeah, God does x because he has to preserve my free will. Yeah, OK. Next question.” I’d like to suggest that we re-think this important issue. 

The title of this short essay is a question: “Do We Have a Free Will?” That question may be jarring to you because it asks if something exists that most people assume exists. My short answer to that question is that it depends on what you mean by “free.” The longer answer is the rest of this essay.

ok and just because I can’t let it go, here is another section to tease you over there for all of it.

Is libertarian free will the reason for the origin of sin?

Short answer: No. 

When addressing this hugely difficult question, it is helpful to consider the following: 
1.  God is not the author or agent of evil, and he is not culpable for evil. 

2.  Satan is not God’s equal opposite (i.e., a God-versus-Satan dualism). 

3.  God, who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will, ordained that sin would enter his universe. (See the short essay in this series entitled “How Could a Good God Allow Suffering and Evil?”) God sovereignly works through secondary causes (such as humans) such that he is not culpable for evil but the secondary causes are. 

4.  Satan and then Adam and Eve sinned because they wanted to sin, and they are morally responsible to God for it. (The ability of humans to sin has four historical stages. First, Adam and Eve were initially able to sin. Second, after their fall, all unregenerate humans [i.e., those who are spiritually dead] are not able not to sin. Third, regenerate humans [i.e., those whom God has given spiritual life] are able not to sin. Fourth, glorified regenerate humans are not able to sin.) 

5.  Tension remains because compatibilists cannot explain exactly how God can ordain all things without being the author or agent of evil. It is at places like that that your head will start spinning if you try to put all the puzzle pieces together (we don’t have all the pieces!). Rather than deny explicit statements of Scripture that support compatibilism, a far better option is to acknowledge that this is a mystery that we finite and fallen humans simply cannot comprehend exhaustively.

6.  There is no easy answer to explaining why God ordained the origin of sin in the first place. John Piper offers a helpful pastoral perspective in Spectacular Sins and Their Global Purpose in the Glory of Christ (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008). (This is available online for free as a PDF: http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/books_bss/bss.pdf. See esp. pp. 39-64.) Why doesn’t God simply wipe out Satan? Piper concludes, “The ultimate answer . . . is that ‘all things were created through [Christ] and for [Christ]’ (Col. 1:16). God foresaw all that Satan would do if he created Satan and permitted him to rebel. In choosing to create him, he was choosing to fold all of that evil into his purpose for creation. That purpose for creation was the glory of his Son. All things, including Satan and all his followers, were created with this in view” (p. 48).

emphasis added.

I read Spectacular Sins earlier this year. it was really very good indeed.

Now it is on sale for 5.00

Do yourself a favor, and if this stuff interests you, spend five dollars on Spectacular Sins and read it too. Then you will see why I was so offended by Wm Paul Young on page 165 of The Shack.

Hat tip to Challies who says this one is not for skimming so set aside a few minutes to read it.

foto friday

afternoon bokeh

Black and White sunstar

Black and White dandelion

why philippians?

Matt Chandler gives the top ten reasons he selected to teach through the book of Philippians for a small group video Bible study. I especially liked reasons 1, 2 and 9 below, but go check out the whole list.

How the church began. Acts 16: Lydia is a wealthy Asian (Thyatira); the slave girl is an oppressed Greek, and the jailer was a middle class Roman. All were transformed by the gospel of Jesus Christ. I love the diversity of that cast.

The book teaches that the gospel advances regardless of circumstance (Phil. 1:12-18). In an age where it is not uncommon to hear that you can put God into your debt by behaving, I thought this was extremely important.

……

It gave me a chance to remind everyone that Philippians 4:13 isn’t about playing sports, making the team, or being successful in business.

solitude and community

Continuing with Life Together by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, we get to this on page 77 and 78:

Let him who cannot be alone beware of community. He will only do harm to himself and the community.  Alone you stood before God when he called you; alone you had to answer that call; alone you had to struggle and pray; and alone you will die and give an account to God.  You cannot escape from yourself; for God has singled you out.

……

But the reverse is also true:  Let him who is not in community beware of being alone. Into the community you were called, and the call was not meant for you alone; in the community of the called you bear the cross, you struggle, you pray.  You are not alone, even in death, and on the Last Day you will be only one member of the great congregation of Jesus Christ.  If you scorn the fellowship of the brethren, you reject the call of Christ and thus your solitude can only be hurtful to you.

We recognize, then, that only as we are within the fellowship can we be alone, and only he that is alone can live in the fellowship…..

…….

Let him who cannot be alone beware of community.  Let him who is not in community beware of being alone.

In thinking about this, compare Romans 14:12

“So then each of us will give an account of himself to God”

with

Hebrews 3:13

“But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by(B) the deceitfulness of sin”

and Hebrews 10:24-25

“24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.”

Hour of Power

you have got to check out Mark Driscoll wearing a tie and preaching the Gospel to the crowd in the Crystal Cathedral on the Hour of Power.

Resurgence blog post about it here.

Direct link to video here.

transcript here.

Think about the message that Mark is bringing in the forum managed by Dr. Robert Schuller. Maybe spend some time with Michael Horton’s 1992 interview with Dr. Schuller here or here to get a feel for how amazing it is that Mark Driscoll got the chance to bring this message in this forum.

small sample of the interview but please go read the whole thing. (MH=Michael Horton, RS=Robert Schuller)

MH: But isn’t it because faith is the instrument through which we’re justified before a God who otherwise would take account of us for our sins, not just our “not trusting…”

RS: We are not justified by faith.
MH: No, it is by grace through faith.

RS: By grace through faith, that’s right.
MH: But what I’m asking is this. Justified from what? The wrath of God?

RS: Oh! I’ll never use that language
MH: But the Bible does.

RS: Yes, the Bible does, but the Bible is God’s book to believers primarily. Listen, and then call me a heretic if you want to, but I’m interested in attracting people, and not driving them farther away. There is language I can and will use and there are times, if we are wise, there is language we will not use….If God is a God of love, how do we handle this concept of wrath? At the outset, on the surface, it appears to be a contradiction; maybe it is. I tell you this, I have come to the conclusion that I haven’t stepped into the center of truth until I’ve dared to step into contradiction. The Bible is a contradiction: Old Testament–Law, New Testament–Grace. Jesus is a contradiction; totally human and totally God.

MH: Of course we would say that that the dual nature of Christ is a mystery but not a contradiction.
RS: It is a contradiction, but you know what? Contradictions are ultimate points of creativity…

What she said

I agree with what Jennifer Rubin says here. there are market based sensible approaches that can be taken to reform our health insurance/health care system in this country, but the left wingers in charge aren’t interested in any such thing.

So why doesn’t the Obama team or their allies look to some alternative ideas, including interstate competition and tax credits, to spur individual purchase of insurance? (We won’t even ask about tort reform, which is an anathema to Democrats dependent on the largess of trial lawyers.) Well certainly, Obama and liberal lawmakers are having a tough time giving up the idea of universal coverage provided by the government. If they can’t get nationalized medicine now they may never succeed. So until the last Blue Dog’s arm has been twisted they won’t throw in the towel quite yet.

But in some sense, it would not be attractive for Obama and his liberal cohorts to open up insurance competition, even if it would almost certainly gain a large bipartisan majority in Congress and succeed in increasing availability and lowering costs. Really, from their perspective, the whole point is for government to be giving out health care. There is no glory in allowing the free market to deliver health care. Politicians aren’t going to get much credit for that. And for those incumbents enjoying the flood of lobbyists and constituents who would be all seeking to tweak a government-run system one way or another—and pony up commensurate political contributions—there is little to be gained by simply pointing voters to the internet for an expanded list of insurers.

UPDATE:

funny video link courtesy of Jonah Goldberg over at the Corner

a wife’s submission

here is the personal story of a former feminist atheist who eventually converted to catholicism learning to embrace the leadership of her husband in the home.

There has also been a part of my conversion on this issue that cannot be explained in terms of logic and reason. It’s nothing I could prove to a skeptic, but I have seen God work in my life in a big way on the occasions when I’ve sacrifice my own preferences in order to let my husband have the tiebreaking vote. Even when I am just sure that I am right, when I am positive that the fabric of the universe will tear apart if things don’t go my way, when I step aside and turn the decision over to my husband, things have this uncanny way of working out for the best.
….

I’ve found that submitting to my husband’s authority is not about power and control, but about freeing up everyone’s mental energy to live and love and focus on what really matters. As with so many other things, these ideas about household structure that I once saw as oppressive and cold rules I now see as just part of a prescription for living a life of love.

the whole thing is very interesting and worth a thorough read.

hat tip to @kathrynlopez on twitter.

God Provides

Continuing with Life Together by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, we get to this on page 72:

God must feed us. We cannot and dare not demand this food as our right, for we, poor sinners, have not merited it. Thus the sustenance that God provides becomes a consolation of the afflicted; for it is the token of the grace and faithfulness with which God supports and guides His children. True, the Scriptures say, “If any will not work, neither let him eat” (II Thess. 3:10, A.R.V.) and thus make the receiving of bread strictly dependent upon working for it. But the Scriptures do not say anything about any claim that the working person has upon God for his bread. The work is commanded, indeed, but the bread is God’s free and gracious gift. We cannot simply take it for granted that our work provides us with bread; this is rather God’s order of grace.

we would do well to remember the admonitions that Moses gave the children of Israel in the book of Deuteronomy and especially chapter 8.

¹¹“Take care lest you forget the LORD your God by not keeping his commandments and his rules and his statutes, which I command you today, ^12(M) lest, when you have eaten and are full and have built good houses and live in them, ¹³and when your herds and flocks multiply and your silver and gold is multiplied and all that you have is multiplied, ^14(N) then your heart be lifted up, and you^(O) forget the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, ¹⁵who^(P) led you through the great and terrifying wilderness,^(Q) with its fiery serpents and scorpions^(R)and thirsty ground where there was no water,^(S) who brought you water out of the flinty rock, ¹⁶who fed you in the wilderness with^(T) manna that your fathers did not know, that he might humble you and test you,^(U) to do you good in the end. ¹⁷Beware^(V) lest you say in your heart, ‘My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth.’ ¹⁸You shall remember the LORD your God, for^(W) it is he who gives you power to get wealth,^(X) that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your fathers, as it is this day. ¹⁹And if you forget the LORD your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship them,^(Y) I solemnly warn you today that you shall surely perish. ²⁰Like the nations that the LORD makes to perish before you,^(Z) so shall you perish, because you would not obey the voice of the LORD your God.

emphasis added

tornados and Lutherans

I am sure everybody has seen John Piper’s post about Providence, Tornados, Lutherans and Homosexuality. If not, hie thee hence and get after it.

6. Conclusion: The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction. Reaffirm the great Lutheran heritage of allegiance to the truth and authority of Scripture. Turn back from distorting the grace of God into sensuality. Rejoice in the pardon of the cross of Christ and its power to transform left and right wing sinners.

There is a disturbing distortion that is disturbingly common among people who claim to be Christ followers. it is the confusion of the unconditional love with which God loves us and the license that comes from thinking of God’s grace as a cheap get out of hell free card and nothing more.

here is how David Powlison put it.

There is something wrong with you! From God’s point of view, you not only need someone else to be killed in your place in order to be forgiven, you need to be transformed to be fit to live with. The word ‘unconditional’ may be an acceptable way to express God’s welcome, but it fails to communicate its purpose: a comprehensive and lifelong rehabilitation, learning ‘the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.’ Seeing with New Eyes. (pp.168-169)

and here is Todd Buru’s followup to the Powlison quote:

But even further than this, I think that by referring to God’s love as unconditional we have begun importing the cultural understanding of this concept into our Christian practice. We are tolerant of all sorts of devaint behavior and sin, especially our own, and so is “God”. We want to be able to pray a prayer and then go back to business as usual and so that’s what “God” commands. We have trouble speaking up about the Bible’s comments on gender roles and sexuality and so we find inventive ways to change “God’s” mind on them. From all of this we get things such as easy believism, free grace theology, and even Christian universalism, which in my mind is the next big conflict rising within the church.

phriday photos

just something about film that looks different.

really hot out at Waterloo Park last weekend

almost 90

reality of marriage

Challies put up an article on Monday just after his eleventh wedding anniversary that was a very real look at marriage through the device of wanting to give his younger newly married self some counseling.

the whole thing is good, but I thought this part was especially helpful because so many people have unrealistic ideas of the marriage relationship:

Prepare to Hurt and Be Hurt!. One of the greatest ironies and the greatest tragedies of marriage is that a husband and wife have more opportunities to sin against one another than against anyone else in all the world. Over the course of eleven years of marriage, I have hurt Aileen more than anyone else and have sinned against her more than I’ve sinned again anyone else. I suppose this means that marriage also offers unparalleled opportunities to extend forgiveness and to choose to overlook sin. While Aileen and I have had our share of struggles over the years, I truly believe that we carry no bitterness toward one another. Through God’s grace we have offered and received forgiveness time and time again. And through his grace we have overlooked many an offense. Yet there have been many occasions when we have hurt one another and when we have let this wounds fester for just a little too long.

If I could go back, I would prepare myself to be hurt and, even more, would seek to emphasize kindness and forbearance and grace so that I could hurt my wife far less often.

that is why I Peter 4:8 says “Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins.”

I can tell you after 20 years of married life that in a marriage there are many many sins that will need to be covered by fervent love. It is when you let your love grow cold that bitterness grows. Once bitterness takes hold of your heart, it is very difficult to uproot, so that love can flourish again.

The writer of Hebrews warned against ever letting the root of bitterness grow and prescribed the grace of God as the preventative. “See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled.”

no direct fellowship?

going back to pages 35-36 of Life Together by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, he makes a curious argument. He says that Christians should not desire to be directly involved in the lives of other believers.

Check this out:

Because Christ stands between me and others, I dare not desire direct fellowship with them. As only Christ can speak to me in such a way that I may be saved, so others too, can be saved only by Christ himself. This means that I must release the other person from every attempt of mine to regulate, coerce, and dominate him with my love. The other person needs to retain his independence of me; to be loved for what he is, as one for whom Christ became man, died, and rose again, for whom Christ bought forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Because Christ has long since acted decisively for my brother, before I could begin to act, I must leave him his freedom to be Christ’s; I must meet him only as the person that he already is in Christ’s eyes.

….
[Spiritual love] will not seek to move others by all too personal, direct influence, by impure interference in the life of another...It will rather meet the other person with the clear Word of God and be ready to leave him alone with this Word for a long time, willing to release him again in order that Christ may deal with him.

emphasis added.

what do you think? How does this compare with Paul’s words in II Corinthians 5:

14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

emphasis added

the Death Penalty

Challies has reviewed The Death Penalty on Trial by Ron Gleason.

It sounds like a interesting and useful book for Christians who have trouble with the Death Penalty as a possible punishment by the State.

Go read the whole review and see what you think. I thought this part was a particularly interesting bit of perspective:

A theme that runs throughout the book is this: all murder is killing but not all killing is murder. Thus a person who murders another can be justly executed by the governing authorities without multiplying the evil. To kill a murderer is not to commit another murder. Rather, terrible though it is to have to take a life, it is an act of justice and a fitting penalty for one who would destroy a person made in God’s image.

It is not our heart that determines our course

continuing to read Life Together by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, you get to page 55.

this is some really great stuff on the importance of Biblical literacy:

How, for example, shall we ever attain certainty and confidence in our personal and church activity if we do not stand on solid Biblical ground? It is not our heart that determines our course, but God’s word. But who in this day has any proper understanding of the need for scriptural proof? How often we hear innumerable arguments “from life” and “from experience” put forward as the basis for most crucial decisions, but the argument of Scripture is missing. And this authority would perhaps point in exactly the opposite direction. It is not surprising, of course, that the person attempts to cast discredit upon their wisdom should be the one who himself does not seriously read, know, and study the Scriptures. But one who will not learn how to handle the Bible for himself is not an evangelical Christian.

…..he who can speak out of the abundance of God’s Word, the wealth of directions, admonitions, and consolations of the Scriptures, will be able through God’s Word to drive out demons and help his brother.

emphasis added.

Like I have said before and I will very likely continue to say many times in the future, what would it look like if Christians who profess to believe that the Bible is God’s inspired Word to us actually believed that II Timothy 3:16-17 means what it says and lived like it?

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Do we really believe this? Do we really believe that the Bible is useful and will lead to full competence and equipping? really? Do we act like it? If we were to act in accordance with this professed belief what would we do?

Prosperity Gospel is a false Gospel

after reading this from Dr. Mohler, I think that I am beginning to understand why John Piper hates the prosperity gospel so intensely.

The New York Times took note of the fact that the current recession and financial distress did not keep the crowd from attending the Southwest Believers’ Convention. The event is part of the ministry of Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, described by Laurie Goodstein as the “current patriarch and matriarch” of the prosperity gospel. The paper summarized their message as the promise that if an individual has sufficient faith in God and donates generously, God will reward that generosity by multiplying the offerings a hundredfold.

Those who might curtail their donations during the recession were warned of the spiritual consequences. “Fear it will make you stingy,” said Kenneth Copeland.
….
Prosperity theology is a False Gospel. Its message is unbiblical and its promises fail. God never assures his people of material abundance or physical health. Instead, Christians are promised the riches of Christ, the gift of eternal life, and the assurance of glory in the eternal presence of the living God.

maddening. taking money from people who don’t have it using a lie and a cheap substitute for the Gospel.

here is John Piper again in case you haven’t seen it.

anatomy of a carve out

check this out. which hospital is this?

“A hospital that was recognized as a comprehensive cancer center or clinical cancer research center by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health as of April 20, 1983, that is located in a State which, as of December 19, 1989, was not operating a demonstration project under section 1814(b), that applied and was denied, on or before December 31, 1990, for classification as a hospital involved extensively in treatment for or research on cancer under this clause (as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this subclause), that as of the date of the enactment of this subclause, is licensed for less than 50 acute care beds, and that demonstrates for the 4-year period ending on December 31, 1996, that at least 50 percent of its total discharges have a principal finding of neoplastic disease, as defined in subparagraph (E).”

from Greg Scandlan who notes that the only people who know which hospital this is are the Congressman who inserted this into the bill and the person(s) who bribed him to do it.

Carville can’t count

I don’t know because I don’t watch the show, but did anyone at CNN question Carville’s crazy cajun calumny?

Here’s Carville on CNN’s State of the Union today:

Put a bill out there, make them filibuster it. Make them be what they are — the party of no. Look, we spend — the truth of the matter is, we spend about $8,000 per person in the United States on health care. The second — the country that seconds the second most is Switzerland, they spend $4,000. That means you have got $4,000 per person more that we spend on health care, that is $1.2 trillion, 4,000 times 300 million. And you know what? Run on it. A lot of people — and we’re not producing any kind of results that double that money provides. Let them kill it. Let them kill it with the interest group money, then run against them. That’s what we ought to do.

Let’s just suppose for a brief moment that every Republican representative in the House and Senate holds their courage and votes against whatever monstrosity of a bill gets put forth as “health care reform.” Let’s just suppose that all 40 Republican Senators hold together on the cloture vote. Admittedly, both of these things are highly unlikely, but just suppose it with me for a moment.

Even if they did so, Republicans can’t stop it. They can’t even slow it down. Not even a little bit. They can’t amend it or impede it.

In order for this monstrosity to be stopped, or impeded or amended or otherwise messed with in any form or fashion Democrats have to do it.

it is simple math. Democrats have 256 out of 435 votes in the house (Carville, that is way more than the 50% needed to pass anything there). and with the addition of Senator Stuart Smalley from Minnesota, Democrats have a filibuster proof 60 out of a 100 votes in the Senate.

It is false, erroneous, misleading, crazy, insane, nuts, etc. for Carville to claim that Republicans have the ability to stop “Health Care Reform.” they can’t.

Either Carville can’t count or he is preemptively trying to cast blame in the Republican direction for what will be a a solely Democratic failure.

I think the blame shifting attempt is so transparent that it should backfire on him and his autocratic compadres.

But that would mean that the “journalists” at CNN would have to have the wherewithal to say some slightly modified version of: “uhhh, James. How is that possible? Shouldn’t you concentrate on holding your own party together and ramming through whatever you want? After all you guys have the votes to pass whatever liberal fantasy you can concoct, don’t you?”

Like another curmudgeon said in a movie I liked, “Go sell crazy somewhere else, we’re all stocked up here.”

Hat tip to Allahpundit

everday Gospel

via Ramblin’ Pastor Man, here is a short video with John Piper explaining that we need the Gospel every day.

the hope

this is the hope we have because of the love of God.

1 John 3:1-3: “Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.”

Marriage

what is the point of marriage? If the only point of marriage is to be the highest expression of romantic love, then evangelical opposition to homosexual marriage is just mean. It would be mean to say to some people that their love is unworthy of expression in marriage while other people get the sanction of the state on their love for one another.

This is the argument that homosexual marriage activists make. Any caring person would certainly agree with that argument if the point of marriage is to express romantic love.

but that isn’t the primary point of marriage. and it never has been the primary point of marriage in any society in any time. as I pointed out a while back, a liberal democratic anthropologist made the secular case against homosexual marriage as well as anybody can. Marriage is for having and raising children.

However, once this principle is washed away, then there is no principled basis for denying marriage to anyone who wants to use it as the highest expression of their romantic love for another or others.

check out this article to see the next shoe to fall in the marriage wars.

As Newsweek magazine makes clear, some new flashpoints are getting restless.

Polyamory, reports Newsweek, is having a “coming-out-party.”  Polyamory is the current “term of art” applied to “families” or “clusters” comprised of multiple sexual partners. As Newsweek explains, this is not exactly polygamy, because marriage is not the issue. Advocates of polyamory argue that their lifestyle is not “open marriage.” Indeed, they define their movement in terms of the moral principle of “ethical nonmonogamy,” defined as “engaging in loving, intimate relationships with more than one person — based upon the knowledge and consent of everyone involved.”

in addition to polyamory/polygamy, if marriage is primarily only the highest expression of romantic love, then there is no principled barrier to a marriage between a parent and a grown child. There is no principled barrier to the marriage of grown siblings. and so on.

once anything goes, then anything will go.

You can say that this is just a slippery slope argument and you would be correct. On the other hand, this slope is slippery and there are no visible ledges or moguls where things might get hung up and/or slowed down.

do any of you see any?

community as a gift of God’s grace

A friend of mine gave me Life Together by Dietrich Bonhoeffer for my birthday and I am reading it. Oh wow is this some good, densely packed material!.

here is an example from page 18 in the opening chapter:

So between the death of Christ and the Last Day it is only by a gracious anticipation of the last things that Christians are privileged to live in visible fellowship with other Christians. It is by the grace of God that a congregation is permitted to gather visibly in this world to share God’s Word and sacrament. Not all Christians receive this blessing. The imprisoned, the sick, the scattered lonely, the proclaimers of the Gospel in heathen lands stand alone. They know that visible fellowship is a blessing.