Thoughts on how Christians should be looking at the current economic crisis

On Dr. Al Mohler's website today he has a post on "A Christian View of the Economic Crisis". Here is an exert:

...
No economy is perfect, but the American economy remains a marvel. The present crisis is an opportunity to rethink some basic questions and restore trust. There are no easy ways out of a crisis like this, and no painless solutions. Yet, would you trade this system for any other?

This current crisis should also remind Christians that we are not called to be mere economic actors, but stewards. Everything we are, everything we do, and everything we own truly belongs to God and is to be at the disposal of Kingdom purposes. This world is not our home and our treasure is not found here. We are to do all, invest all, own all, purchase all to the glory of God.

Finally, this current economic crisis just might help Christians to focus on another issue -- retirement. Where in the Bible are we told to aspire to years and decades of leisure without labor? There is nothing wrong with saving for what the world calls retirement. Indeed, that is just good stewardship. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with workers enjoying the fruit of their labor. But Christians should think of retirement as an opportunity to be redeployed for Kingdom service.

Today's crisis in the financial system should not be a threat to the long-term health and vitality of our economic system. There is cause for concern, but no justification for panic. Rather than hit the panic button, spend that energy thinking about how Christians should glorify God in our economic lives. We should watch the developments and debates in Washington and New York with interest, but we should investigate our own hearts with even greater urgency.

I think Dr. Mohler is one of the most brilliant minds in all of Christianity today, and recommend that you read the post in entirety here: http://www.almohler.com/ . His thoughts bring a clear perspective on what we are facing as individuals and as a nation.

The Church in America part 4: Corporate Worship

Putting the evil of politics on hold for a while, I want to go back to a series I started a few weeks ago about the Church in America. I want to deal with the topic of worship in our churches today, and how I feel that too much is being made over people's opinion and not enough on what the Bible has to say. Church growth gurus and marketers have turned the church into a coffee shop, bookstore, come as you are, irreverent gathering in my humble opinion. Now, I know those are strong words, but look at how churches try to attract people today. It is appalling the lengths some will go to just to make their church look better than all the other ones around them. I read a blog the other day that mentioned a church starting up in a town that sent out cards that asked the question, "Does you churches music s*ck?" Of course the church brochure didn't even have the decency to put an asterisk in the word on the mail out. Now, what type of church leader would ever think that would be an effective way to get the attention of the people in his area to come check out his church? Probably some young 20-30 something who thinks the church is full of a bunch of old people who need to get out so that more young people will show up to have a good time. I feel this not only is a sad commentary on the leadership of the church, but also a neglect of a biblical principle of the older generation teaching the younger. But, in our society today "old" is viewed as being out of date and lacking in attraction. "New" is viewed as being relative and impressionable. Is this what we think of the church, too? We need churches to be "hip" and "cool" so that people will show up? What about the Gospel? Do we need to change it too so that people will come to our churches? Many have today and in the process are leading many people astray. They think they have eternal life, but they do not. Why? Because of a war between culture and doctrine. Can the two co-exist? Yes. Should our churches forsake thousands of years of history so that people will feel more comfortable? No.
Contemporary music is not inherently evil, but the idea behind it leads to a pragmatism that I don't think the scripture allows. I know me being more of a regulatory principle guy skews my view, but why do we think just because the scripture might be silent on something gives us permission to do whatever we want and claim it as a Freedom in Christ. Whatever happened to erring on the side of caution in our corporate gatherings? Should not our focus be on uplifting Christ, even if that means putting personal preference aside to make sure that is being done?
At the church I pastor we don't have "special" music or choral music. We do this because I feel scripture directs us to corporate worship that lifts up God by the participation of the whole. When you put your focus on one person or a selected few it is harder to put your thoughts on God and not the "talents" of the performers. We also only sing hymns, because I feel they do a better job of saying what the scripture says, and not simply focusing on individual worship. If I had my way completely I would only sing songs that mention "us" and "we" (focus on the whole) instead of songs that use the words "I" or "me" (focus on the individual). I would also change songs that mention "I" and "me" if they are good hymns that should still be sung but with more of a corporate focus.
Why go to all this trouble? Because I think we need to change the mindset that many in the church have today. We live in a world that is fit to our needs. "Your way right away" is a motto many in America live by, and think the church should, too. But the Church was built on the Rock, Christ. It is not ours to mold into something we like at the time, nor should we let the unsaved tell us what they want. I mean where does it stop when all we are concerned about is satisfying the consumer instead of giving Praise to the Father? Let's make our churches TRUE sanctuaries of worship by making sure we are focused on the Father first, faithful to the scriptures second and thirdly, concerned with the worship of the whole instead of the glorification of a few. And this goes for all secondary matters in the church because music style, wardrobe, and architecture should be the last thing dividing the church when people are questioning the authority of Scripture, unsure of the definition of marriage, and when parents have forsaken their responsibility to teach their own children the Word of God.

Why Liberals despise Conservatism

Conservatism is a political philosophy that stands for low taxes, a small central government, personal responsibility, strong military and takes a pro-life stance on abortion. Conservatism has been around for a while but was made popular by President Ronald Reagan in the 80's. Today it seems that Conservatism is being treated like the plague by those on the Left. They don't like its stance on any of the issues that Conservatism was built on. The Left today sees no reason why people should take responsibilities for their bad decisions and the role of government should be to take care of the people in a way that is at best borderline Socialism, and at worst full blown Socialism. From the Left's view of "sharing the wealth" to "socialized health care" they feel that in a country as exceptional as ours that no one should have to be on the short end of the stick. However, what the Left doesn't take into account is the fact that in America everyone truly has the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". Now, there have been times in our brief history as a nation that we have not been willing to give all of the citizens of this country a fair chance, but I do not think you can say that applies anymore. That is not to say that racism nor sexism does not exist in our country today, but as we look around and see a black man as the Democratic parties nominee for president and a woman on the Republican ticket we have come along way in a short time.
In other words Democrats hate Conservatism because it is for everything they are against. Conservatism goes against their secular humanistic world-view. Conservatism promotes capitalism, a free market economy, and personal accountability for all your choices. If someone chooses to not take advantage of all the free opportunities given to people today, then why must the rest of us bail them out? This is not the role of government! If anyone should be helping out those in need it should be the church or the local community those in need live in, but never should it be the national government. The Left's understanding of the role of government comes from a skewed view of the Bill of Rights and what people are entitled to. Yes it would be nice if everyone in America had health care, but this is never something the government should make the rest of America pay for. It would be nice if there was no lower class or homeless people in our country, but because people have fallen on hard times it doesn't mean that our government should hand them money.
The American Experiment, as our Forefathers described it, was established so that people could live in a country free of religious, economic, and governmental tyranny. By putting more control in the hands of the government on all these issues we have lost our identity and integrity as a Republic. The only answer in getting it back is to give more power to the people. The only way that can be done is by making government smaller, giving people back more of their own money, and making them responsible for all of the choices. Conservatism believes this and so do I. This is why the Left despises it and why they try to distort it and tear it down any chance they get. Sure, Conservatism has been given a bad name by some lately for their lack of sticking to Conservative principles and ideas, but this doesn't mean that Conservatism has failed. What is needed is a return to these principles that so many in this country truly desire no matter what any media member or politician has to say.

What do you think of the tone of the '08 Campaign?

I recently have been troubled by the turn in the tone of the '08 campaign. I think the latest two commercials by the McCain camp and the latest ad by the Obama think tank do nothing to further the much needed debate on the real issues at hand. "Lipstick on a pig" is an old line and the only reason it went so far was because of the recent use of lipstick by Gov. Palin, and the reaction of the audience when Barry used the colloquialism. The commercial about the freshman Senator from Illinois supporting "sex education" for kindergartners when he was in the Illinois state senate could be an effective ad, but it is so vague in its desription of what Obama really voted for that many might just take it as a smear ad. Then you have the recently aired ad by the Obama campaign saying things about McCain's age that basically comes over as age discrimination. The ad mentions that Sen. McCain does not use email which is smart by people in his job field, or the one he is seeking, because you never know when someone might want to subpoena your emails to support their conspiracy theories.
All in all though I just wish that both of these campaigns would just get back to the issues at hand. My main reason for taking this position is because I feel that the conservative Reaganesque platform that McCain is running on is best for our nation in these difficult time. Being someone who makes barely enough to pay all the bills that come in monthly, I have full confidence in the Republican presidential candidate to turn things around and get out of the way and allow the market and the economy to fix itself. On the other hand the Democratic candidate wants to put more of a burden on those that can successfully help our economy and ad taxes to an already overtaxed business sector. His promises of cutting taxes for "All Americans" is an out an out lie. 40 percent of the American population do not even pay income taxes so why are they getting a tax cut? (Which in reality is a tax credit that sends money back to people including those who don't pay income taxes which is welfare) Also, why he needs to brag about putting more taxes on the upper 5% in our nation is beyond me. Isn't this exactly what Clinton did (plus raising taxes for the middle class) that caused us to be heading into a economic downturn when Bush first took over in '01? How can we add jobs to a nation when the businesses are being so heavily taxed they can not afford to hire more people? How can we compete in a world economy when new businesses starting up in America will be subject to these tax increases as well? More jobs will go over seas and more people will be without employment. This is the truth whether or not the Obama campaign believes it. Of course this might just be what they want so they can get four more years to fix what they will say was really Bush's fault. All in all I see it giving them more and more excuses to take us closer and closer to Socialism instead of remaining a Republic that believes in Capitalism.
So now tell me what you think? Do you agree or disagree with what I have mentioned about political ads or the issues? Let me know and let's get the discussion going.

My letter to the Editor's page of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette

The Unenlightened win again:

Let me first say, "Thank you" for interviewing Dr. Mohler on the occasion of the release of his new book Atheism Remix. I am a big fan of Dr. Mohler's. I read his blog daily, listen to his radio show online when I have the chance, and even attended the Together for the Gospel conference he spoke at earlier this year in Louisville, KY. I plan on getting a copy of this book as soon as possible. Dr. Mohler seeks to put forth intelligent Christian conversation on many issues today that many “Evangelicals” have neglected to think on entirely, or have given over to a quasi-secular world-view philosophy on these issues.
Secularism as well as Atheism is growing rapidly in our country today. One of the main reasons is because to think things through in a Biblical or God-centered way is viewed as simple mindedness or possessing a lack of genuine intelligence by many of the "Cultural elite". That’s why Gov. Palin of Alaska was being eviscerated earlier this past week by the MSM. “Certainly no one alive today with half a brain could truly be this conservative in their world-view,” was basically their main criticism. Not until she took the stage and proved herself to be an intelligent, well spoken, even comical woman was she approved (as if she needed it) by those who had so harshly criticized her nomination just days earlier. Of course, the more liberal side of the Democratic Party still found ways to besmirch and demean her no matter the fact that well over 50% of Americans thought her to be quite charming after her speech Wednesday night.
Now, my purpose in mentioning this is to show the great gulf that has divided conservatives and liberals in the last twenty to thirty years in this country. Never would I say that a member of a certain political party is or is not a believer. That would be too self-righteous and pharisaical of me, and I would be falling into the same trap that others have in recent days. But, the difference between secular and non-secular is there and it is becoming more and more obvious each and every day. This is why the Democratic Party is having such a hard time of holding on to the base they say they are fighting for.
Middle class America holds to a non-secular world-view and is having a hard time committing to a party that supports a pro-choice, pro-gay/homosexual marriage, socialistic agenda. They may not like the current administration, the current economic downturn, or the stereotype of the GOP in general, but they are having an even harder time voting for a platform that at its core is secular in nature and policy. This is why on November 4th another Republican will be voted into the Oval office because people in the real world cannot go along with the secular world-view the Left has given over to in efforts to separate itself from the rest of the “unenlightened” in our day.

A slam on Community Organizers

The fact that many people are using Gov. Palin's comment about Sen. Obama being a Community Organizer as backlash attack on her is ridiculous. The only reason why it was even brougth up in her speech is because since the day she was nominated for the Vice Presidency the Obama campaign has been belittling her role as a former Mayor of a small town. (Comments on that below) In no way was Gov. Palin detracting from the important work of community organizers, however you have to be blind to see that there are BIG differences between being the Mayor of a town and being a community organizer.
The biggest distinction comes in one (a Mayor) being elected by a constituency to hold public office, while a community organizer is part of a group of non-elected people coming together to solve a social issue. Both can, and are, very important to the growth and development of their own respected towns or communities, but in comparing the two only one is an actual public office held by an elected official for executive purposes. And to me that is the point that is actually being made by the GOP. One should not besmirch the work of any individual or group trying to better their own area or the people that make up the surrounding community, but when talking about qualifications for holding the highest executive office in our country executive experience is important even if it's at the smallest level. Of course though we know that GOV. Palin's experience as an executive does not stop on the smallest level but continued on to the highest level of her state, the governors office of Alaska.
So please, let us not deal with such minutiae when it comes to political bloviation (thank you Mr. O'Reilly for that word). Instead let us wade through all the pandering and empty promises and elect people not on their orated words, but on the basis of their merits.

Gov. Palin speaks out

Gov. Sarah Palin finally got her chance to speak out last night against all the criticism that she has received over the past week since her surprising VP nomination by Sen. John McCain. Her speech was one for the ages in my humble opinion, and I feel it more that adequately introduced Gov. Palin to the nation. Here is her speech if you haven't had a chance to watch and listen to it, or if you just want to relive the excitement again:



I also want to know your opinions on Gov. Palin's speech so please tell me what you think.

Experience only He can believe in

I just heard this on the radio and had to pass it along. Barack Obama just came out with the big difference in his lack of experience versus GOV. Sarah Palin's perceived lack of experience. Check out his statement:

“Well, my understanding is that Governor Palin’s town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We’ve got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the last couple of years.”

Now, I am a fan of comedy and this statement is filled with great comedic value. First of all why is the Candidate of change trying his best to show his experience over the VICE-Presidential pick of the GOP? Doesn't he know that he is running against John McCain? Or are he and the rest of his left-wing cronies so scared to death of the Governor of the great state of Alaska that the feel they have to try their best to belittle a great VP pick by Sen. McCain. Way to take your eyes of the prize Barry. Second, do you notice that there is no mention of the fact that she actually ran, and is running, a STATE. A state which by the way has a very significant role in our countries energy interest. But, Sen. Obama feels no need to mention that part of Gov. Palin's EXECUTIVE qualifications. May be he thinks if he just doesn't mention it American will forget about that and actually buy into his nonsensical reasoning. Thirdly, staying with irrational reasoning, does this statement actually make sense to anyone else out there? Seriously, I want to know. Not so that I can berate you or anything, I would just like to know how a man as smart as Barack Obama could buy into such unsound judgment as to think his presidential candidacy in any way compares to Gov. Palin's holding the highest office in the state of Alaska!
See, this is why I could never get into politics. If any opponent of mine tried for one second to come at me or one of my supporters with such insane notions as these, I think I might have to correct the error of my opponent with such strong language as, "YOU IDIOT" or "ARE YOU INSANE" or "SERIOUSLY THIS GUY IS LEADING IN THE POLLS." But go ahead and tell me I am wrong. Please show me why this statement didn't deserve the response that it got from the McCain campaign.

“For Barack Obama to argue that he’s experienced enough to be president because he’s running for president is desperate circular logic and its laughable. It is a testament to Barack Obama’s inexperience and failing qualifications that he would stoop to passing off his candidacy as comparable to Governor Sarah Palin’s executive experience managing a budget of over $10 billion and more than 24,000 employees,” said spokesman Tucker Bounds.

There it is folks. Change you can believe in? Only if change means rejecting logic for made up perceptions. By the way my next post will be on "Why I believe in Unicorns". What that's a bad idea? You mean I just can't say that they are real and people believe me? Well I guess that's reason number two I shouldn't run for public office. Until next time....

JG OUT