Be Careful How You Judge

It’s tempting to attribute every natural disaster to God’s judgment, and maybe there is a time to do that. But the Almighty didn’t call me last week and tell me that tornadoes and floods would ravage large portions of the nation, and that it’s all our own fault. So I’ll refrain from speculating on that one for now.

But I will quote the words of Jesus:

There were some present at that very time who told him of the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered thus? I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem ? I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish."(Luke 13:1-5 RSV)

It seems to me that Jesus is telling us to refrain from judging others who have suffered calamities and not to impute motives to God. He does give some indication of God’s protection if we are his followers, but with the reminder that we are all in need of repentance.

Elsewhere we’re told that time and chance happen to all (Ecclesiastes 9:11) and that the rain falls on the just and the unjust (Matthew 5:45), with both positive and negative implications.

It is wise and loving to avoid pointing the finger of judgment toward those who have suffered calamity. Read the Book of Job and find out why.

The Dual Mandate of the Federal Reserve

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke gave his first ever press conference today, and in the wake of that it is relevant to address a few facts about the Federal Reserve in the hope of explaining a few Fed actions that otherwise are unexplainable.

Here's the central point. Most central banks elsewhere in the world have one charge: to protect the currency in order to control inflation. Unlike the other central banks, the Federal Reserve has a dual charge: To control inflation and to achieve full employment.

It is that second mandate that creates most of the mischief. In the 1970s, in the days of Arthur Burns as Fed chief, the Fed kept interest rates artificially low and pumped up the money supply because the primary focus at the time was on the second mandate. Inevitably, inflation hit double digits yet unemployment remained unacceptably high. With the entrance of Paul Volcker as Fed chief, the Fed recommitted to protect the currency and drive down inflation. The result was rapid economic growth with low inflation, something the Neo-Keynesian economists believed to be impossible. This approach persisted through the 1990s, with some observers even positing that the Fed had quietly established a quasi-gold standard by manipulating monetary policy with an eye toward stabilizing the price of gold in dollar terms.

Today those who control the halls of power really do believe that central authorities, by pushing the right buttons and pulling the right levers, can move the economy any way they like. And they also seem to take more seriously the mandate to use the Fed to create more jobs even to the exclusion of the first mandate of price stability.

Many of us operate on the understandable assumption that business owners create jobs, not the government and its agencies, but the world looks different from Washington, DC. The fact is, the Keynesian models are made to order for the big corporate state, because for Keynesian economics to work, there must be a large government presence in the economy. They have their complex econometric models requiring many inputs, such as labor costs, taxation, spending, interest rates, exchange rates, and dozens more, and the greater number of inputs under the control of the small, elite cadre of experts, the better the results. We cannot leave such important economic decisions in the hands of a free market where the unwashed masses rule. Or so the theory goes.

One problem of many that we have right now is how the Fed views the American currency. They do not perceive their primary role as one of defending the currency. Instead they view the value of the dollar as one input of many in their econometric model. And, as they see it, inputting a weak dollar into the model results in economic growth because it can increase exports from the US. Yes, I am saying the trashing of the dollar is very intentional. It's also a fools game, because ultimately it will kill the average American's pocketbook, make it harder to finance the deficit (who wants to buy the debt of a nation whose currency can't be trusted?), and generally impoverish most while enriching a few.

This has been tried before in this country, and it was in my lifetime not too many years ago. Read your your history and you'll see I'm right. Ultimately a strong-willed, principled Fed Chairman and a new President with an economics degree from the pre-Keynesian days solved the problem.

Maybe we'll get lucky again as we did circa 1980.

Isaiah 10:1-2: Robbing the Needy of Justice

Woe to those who decree unrighteous decrees, who write misfortune, which they have prescribed to rob the needy of justice, and to take what is right from the poor of My people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless. Isaiah 10:1-2 NKJV

If I saw Isaiah's comments on the editorial page of my newspaper, I would conclude that the prophet was talking about my own country and the terrible and unsuccessful policies we have for dealing with poverty. The record of our national model is clearly one that enslaves people even more to their condition rather than lifting them out of it.

And I can't help but thinking that this is not just good intentions gone awry. Some of it is an unabashed attempt to ensure a constituency's vote, a sort of modern 3/5's compromise where a few politicians can control a large block of votes.

The Vision Thing

Where there is no vision, the people perish. (Proverbs 29:18 KJV)


If I were to ask you what a good mission statement for our country would be, could you recite one? Likely you could come up with one with a little thought, but the fact that it takes some thought is symptomatic of the problem.

At critical times in our history, leadership has provided a unified vision around which the nation could rally. Ronald Reagan had his shining city on the hill, borrowed from John Winthrop’s City on a Hill sermon. Lincoln had his “last best hope of mankind” message. Roosevelt spoke of a rendezvous with destiny. Jefferson had his inalienable rights. Woodrow Wilson wanted to make the world safe for democracy. Emma Lazarus wrote of the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

Is there such a vision today? The glue that holds a nation together is a vision that is greater than itself, and it is up to the leadership of that nation to articulate that vision in such a way that the people feel it, see it, and almost touch it. I would submit that the nation has every reason to have such a vision, but for some reason does not.

Philosopher and theologian Francis Schaeffer made the following observation about Western Culture in his book How Should We Then Live?

[W]ill men stand for their liberties? Will they not give up their liberties, inch by inch, as long as their own personal peace and prosperity is sustained and not challenged, as long as the goods are delivered? (Page 227, Crossway Books, c. 1976)

Schaeffer points out that a society bent on itself thinks only of its own peace and its own prosperity without regard to what might be happening in Zimbabwe or even across town. As long as I am secure in my little corner of my neighborhood and the pizza delivery truck can make it through the barricades, then I am content and will reelect the guy who can guarantee it. Schaeffer continues:

I believe the majority of the silent majority, young and old, will sustain the loss of liberties without raising their voices as long as their own lifestyles are not threatened. And since personal peace and affluence are so often the only values that count with the majority, politicians know that to be elected they must promise these things. Politics has largely become not a matter of ideals – and truth – but of supplying a constituency with a frosting of personal peace and affluence. They know that voices will not be raised as long as people have these things, or at least an illusion of them. (ibid)

During the next election cycle listen to the stump speeches and posturing, and see Dr. Schaeffer’s prescience from over 30 years ago. Every nation needs leadership to provide the focal point for a vision greater than itself. If that vision does not come from inspired leadership, that nation risks domination by a vision rooted in the baser elements of the world.
In the days of Ezekiel, God pictured the walls of the city as fractured and broken. In those days the walls of the city provided protection from the enemy. He looked, he said, for a man who would “make a wall and stand in the gap before me … but I found no one.” (Ezekiel 22:30 NKJV). Leadership is the key to providing the vision thing. Absent that from the politicians, we must learn to stand in the gap ourselves.

A Little Leaven

Along the New York State shores of Lake Erie are some of the finest winemaking facilities in the world. To my personal taste neither California nor France can hold a glass against the quality that comes from the vineyards of New York.

I had the fortunate experience of spending my first two years of college in the middle of that winemaking area and came to know the local beverages well. I even tried my hand at making my own. On the excuse that making wine is a wonderful way to get extra credit, I obtained some simple equipment from the chemistry lab. I then concocted a mixture of ingredients that included the perfect proportion of grape juice and sugar water.

Winemaking requires a chemical reaction that changes sugar into alcohol. In the natural world, yeast spores gather on the grapeskins, and when the grapes are crushed, the spores mingle with the juice and a natural fermentation begins. That’s just the nature of things; yeast spores permeate our environment and they infect everything from wine to sour dough to allergic reactions.

In my little chemistry experiment (for extra credit, of course), my bottle of pasteurized grape juice was devoid of natural yeast spores, so I added a bit of baker’s yeast to my concoction and assembled my apparatus. In a month or so I had two very palatable bottles of red wine.

My Funk and Wagnalls describes fermentation as “chemical changes in organic substances produced by the action of enzymes”, and I am able to vouch that my wine was chemically different from the grape juice I started with, and it was all started with just a few grams of yeast. To mix metaphors with James, “Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth!” Or, mixing metaphors with Paul, “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump,” or in my case, two fifths.

When Paul mentioned the leaven issue to the Corinthians, he was using leaven as a metaphor for a certain egregious sin that had infected their church. Their failure to deal with the couple involved was infecting their entire church, just as leavening grows and spreads and chemically changes whatever it infects.

Paul chose an appropriate illustration in using the example of yeast to describe how sin operates. Just as yeast changes the nature of what it touches, so does sin change what it touches. Unless the people purged themselves of sin, they would become something other than what they were. In the case of Corinth, their church had already changed drastically, and not for the better. (I Corinthians 5)

And just as yeast spores are everywhere, so are the seeds of sin.

At the end of the fermentation process, the juice develops a high enough alcohol content that it kills the yeast spores and the fermentation stops. Death is a part of the process, and the yeast spores bring it upon themselves. That’s the same way sin works. “Each is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and is enticed. Then when desire is conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown brings forth death.” (James 1:14-15 NKJV)

As it turned out, I got no credit in chemistry class for my little experiment, but the project had a reward of its own. The wine itself was gladly consumed, but that wasn’t the real reward. I believe the world around us speaks of the truth of God. In observing how yeast works, I had a better understanding of how sin works, and I determined not to let the process of corruption change me, and instead to purge out the leaven in my life. Sadly, I’m still purging, but happily, the blood of the Lamb, the wine that is wine indeed, purges the unwanted yeast from our lives and sets us on a course anew.

LC

Lessons from Quebec

It is time to learn a lesson or two from the Quebec Act.

The Quebec Act of 1774 was an act of Britain’s parliament during the aftermath of the French and Indian War. Its purpose was to set the procedures for the governance of Quebec and other North American territory ceded to Britain as a result of France’s defeat. In its time the document was an enlightened one, although many American colonists didn’t see it that way.

Britain, by this time a solidly Protestant nation, guaranteed the free practice of the Roman Catholic faith in these newly acquired territories, a common sense provision given the heavily Catholic French population. But this provision for religious tolerance set off a storm of alarm in the thirteen colonies. Many of the colonies had designs on the formerly French lands of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and other areas that would eventually comprise the Northwest Territory, and these areas were included in the new act. Quebec was not that far away, and antagonism inherited from the European religious experience was very much in the cultural memory. Alexander Hamilton spoke for many when he said, “The act makes the effectual provision not only for the protection, but for the permanent support of Popery.”

Put differently, many colonists felt betrayed by what they viewed as a sell-out of principles.

Even as late as 1770, most of the colonies had a lingering, deeply engrained suspicion of Catholicism. Only three colonies allowed Catholics to vote. In the New England states, except Rhode Island, they were unable to hold public office. In addition, “the state of New York held the death penalty over priests who entered the colony; Virginia boasted that it would only arrest them. Georgia did not permit Catholics to reside within its boundaries; the Carolinas merely banned them from office.” (Religion and the Continental Congress: 1774 – 1789, by Derek Davis, p. 153)

The Continental Congress eventually petitioned the King, expressing their concerns over “establishing an absolute government and Roman Catholic religion throughout the vast region.” (Davis, p. 154)

History teaches an abundance of lessons. Several come to mind immediately.

1. The Olympic sport of “Jumping to Conclusions” was practiced during the Colonial days. British motives behind the Quebec Act were nothing more than a recognition of the reality on the ground. The newly acquired lands were unshakably Catholic, and anything but religious tolerance would ensure further conflict and bloodshed. The British understood the art of the possible, a lesson lost on many people then – and many people today. A small political compromise in order to ensure the enactment of 80% of what one wants is too often branded as a sell-out of principles and is often taken as proof of sinister motives and subterfuge.

2. The British move to enlightened self-interest in Quebec was a wise one, but it didn’t stop demagogues from milking it. The Continental Congress on the one hand protested to the King about the encroachment of “Popery” (notice the name calling, which should be a red flag in its own right), while with the other hand they were trying to court these same “papists” to the revolutionary cause. They even attempted to assure the Quebecois that the freedom of conscience in religious matters is one of the inalienable rights granted by the Creator. One must believe that the people of Quebec noticed the disconnect, but whatever they did or did not notice, they remained loyal to the British Crown during the conflict.

If you have ever been through a “church war”, you know about the barrage of accusations, personal attacks, and name-calling that seem to be the standard ammunition of such affairs. You know about the courting of prospective followers and the promises made. You also know about the political hay that is often made in the wake of decisions that are often simply a small administrative detail, but are viewed by others as the proverbial camel’s nose under the proverbial tent that will eventually lead to a full-blown retreat into paganism. And you would also know that most of the time this is overblown for political purposes.

3. The third lesson I draw from this is a positive one. Within a short radius of my office are numerous houses of worship, both churches and synagogues, reflecting the rich diversity of the community. That diversity is typical of most places in the country. That’s completely unremarkable today, but that’s unusual in the annals of history – indeed it is unusual in most of the contemporary world.

But the past few weeks I have noticed something that is in fact remarkable, and I noticed it more than once. The neighborhood around my office has a number of synagogues, and recently I have noticed next to the synagogues’ normal signage a second sign. The second sign announces to passersby notice of Sunday Christian church services to be held in the same building. Here are cases of two diverse religious groups, historically at odds to the point of persecution, sharing the same building for their respective worship services.

I have to believe that the great Virginians such as Madison, Jefferson, and Washington, all champions of religious liberty, would be very happy to see something like this that would have been unthinkable in Colonial times.

The Purposes of Prophecy

The Purposes of Prophecy

This link is to a sermon I delivered April 2. It's an expanded version my March 23, 2011 blog.

Clarification on March 23 Blog

On March 23, I posted a short blog entitled If These Are the Last Days, What Now Should We Do? You can read it here: If These Are the Last Days ...

Here's a link to a sermon I gave on the subject: Sermon

After some thought, I think it is important to clarify a few things. I believe wholeheartedly that if these are the last days, then storing up gold and silver will not do you much good in the long run. James makes that point in James 5. Jesus tells us in Luke 12, in the context of the last days, not to worry about our physical well-being, but that God can take care of us, and that our primary concern should be our relationship with God and with each other.

But suppose these are not the last days? What then?

Clearly, if these are not the last days, our focus should still be our relationship with God and man. But there is another operative principle at play, and it’s found in Proverbs 13:22. “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children.”

Paul said something similar in II Corinthians 12:14: “For the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.”

The point is, don’t neglect the things you should be doing. There is no condemnation for making prudent plans for yourself and your children.

A Healthy Dose of Neglect

Many years ago some writer – it might have been Norman Vincent Peale – said, “Every child needs a good, healthy dose of neglect.” I can hear the horrors from parents of small children even as I write this! How could anyone say such a thing?

And yet this thought needs to be explored a bit. Clearly no wise parent will allow a two-year old to play unsupervised in Daddy’s tool shed or to explore his environment with a nail file in a room full of electrical outlets.

But having said that, as children mature they need to be cut loose from Mom & Dad’s all-seeing eyes, allowing them to make mistakes or better yet develop problem-solving skills with their playmates. If Mom and Dad are there to ride to the rescue every time a little difficulty arises, the child will remain a child even into adulthood. Dependency will be a habit and adulthood delayed.

Maybe that’s what Jesus meant when he told his disciples, “It is expedient for you that I go away” (John 16:7), and, “He that believes in me, the works that I do he shall do also, and greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto the Father” (John 14:12).

Maybe we can paraphrase it as: “It’s best I leave. I’ll send you some help, but you’ll have to learn how to step out of your comfort zones.”

Jesus was going to give them a good, healthy dose of neglect, but not without the help they would need. Even though he would not leave them comfortless, he was going to turn them loose. If he had hovered around, they likely would not have stepped out as they did because they would have had apron strings of their own imagination holding them back.

It’s the same with our children. We can’t tag along to their job interviews, although I understand that’s happening these days. We’ll cripple them if we try to shelter them from every trial and difficulty in life.

There is a wonderful little parable about a butterfly emerging from its cocoon. A child watched the process with fascination, but also deep concern. The new butterfly was struggling mightily to escape, and in kindness the boy decided to carefully cut the cocoon to ease the butterfly’s burden. Shortly after, the butterfly died, unable to fly. The story goes on to explain that a butterfly needs the struggle of escape from the cocoon in order to force fluid into the wings so it can fly.

It is through the struggle that they are able to fly.