Happy Armistice Day

On November 11, 1918 — “the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month” — the guns fell silent. World War I was over. The day was set aside to celebrate peace after the world grew weary of “the war to end all wars.”

You see, the world had been thrust into war more than four years earlier over the issue of… um… the cause of…

…maybe a brief history lesson is in order.

Brief History of the cause of World War I

On June 28, 1914 Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, the heir to throne of Austria-Hungary, was assassinated by a Serbian student named Gavrilo Princip. After the assassination, Austria-Hungary made a series of ten demands on Serbia — known as the “July Ultimatum” — to which Serbia was unwilling to agree. The demands were made deliberately unacceptable by Austria-Hungary so they could justify declaring war on Serbia when Serbia refused the demands.

Now, Europe was, at that time, a complicated web of political treaties and alliances. Austria-Hungary maintained treaties and alliances with a number of other countries. So did Serbia. So, when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia one of Serbia’s allies declared war on Austria-Hungary. Then one of Austria-Hungary’s allies declared war on Serbia and her ally. Then an ally of Serbia’s ally declared war on the allies of Austria-Hungary, which then prompted…

You get the point.

As a result of their political alliances, nations fell into the conflict like dominoes — all because of a dispute between two countries.

And millions died.

Never was the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson so evident. In a letter to James Monroe, Jefferson once wrote:

“I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor, property and lives of their people.”

Of course Woodrow Wilson, president of the United States at the time, ignored the advice of Jefferson and wrangled for a way to get the U.S. into the war (but that’s another story).

The point is this: After years of fighting over complicated political alliances, the world had had enough. It was time for peace. It was time for Armistice Day.

Sadly, this celebration of peace was short lived. Before the world could celebrate the first anniversary of Armistice Day the kind of political maneuvering that caused the “war to end all wars” set the stage for the next one. A mere six months later the Allied Powers — seizing the political opportunity of their new-found power — forced upon Germany the Treaty of Versailles. In that treaty the Germans were forced to accept full responsibility for causing the war. The rest of the provisions of the treaty were so punitive and so humiliating as to cause a deep-seated resentment in the German people for the rest of Europe — the kind of resentment that could lead a nation to embrace any leader who was prepared to restore a sense of national pride, even if that leader’s name is Adolf Hitler.

In the rest of the world Armistice Day became “Remembrance Day,” a day for honoring the veterans of World War I. In the United States it became “Veterans Day,” a day for honoring all veterans of the United States military. Over time, a day that was originally set aside to celebrate peace, has become a day to glorify war. It’s not presented that way, but that is effectively what it is.

Now, does that mean I believe there is nothing worth fighting for? Absolutely not. We live in a world corrupted by sin. There will always be bad guys out to harm others and rule the world. We should always stand ready to defend ourselves from such people. But glorifying war only feeds the kind of nationalism that led to “the war to end all wars.”

When Isaiah prophesied of the coming Messiah he said:

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” — Isaiah 9:6

“Prince of Peace.”

The effects of sin will not be eradicated in this world until Christ comes again. Until then we will have war. But it is a tragic and horrible consequence of sin, not something to be glorified. And it is very sad, indeed, that the one day in history set aside for the celebration of peace was so short lived that it’s original intent is all but forgotten.

Thideology News of the Day

This ought to scare to death every American who values liberty.

Thideology News of the Day

This bit of news makes me proud to be a native Tennessean.

Constitution Day? Now what’s that?

Once again Constitution Day passed with nary a mention — and small wonder. To draw attention to a day that honors the Constitution might lead to citizens actually reading it. And this is something government officials would likely discourage. You see, while they have long praised the Constitution with their words, they have just as long ignored its authority with their actions. If citizens were actually aware of the principles contained in the Constitution and knew the limitations it placed on the federal government they might begin to ask embarrassing questions.

Can’t have that.

The Constitution authorizes the federal government to perform 35 specifically enumerated tasks. These tasks are delegated to the government by the people of the United States. Anything beyond those 35 actions is prohibited. At least that’s what Thomas Jefferson said. I seem to recall he knew a thing or two about the Constitution and its intent. Anyway, he said…

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated [in the constitution].”

But the Obama administration disagrees. Obama has appointed “Czars” (an office not authorized by the Constitution) to oversee various aspects of the government. These “Czars” dictate policy (an action not authorized by the Constitution) that carries the weight of law. Many of these dictates are contrary to the Constitution. Just a few examples include:

• “Czar” Cass Sunstein advocating that Obama, not courts, should interpret the law (in direct violation of the Constitution).
• “Czar” Cass Sunstein seeking to establish censorship in the form of, what he calls, the “New Deal Fairness Doctrine” (in direct violation of the first amendment to the Constitution).
• “Czar” Cass Sunstein wants to take money away from the American’s who earned it and give it to “poorer” nations because he thinks that would be more “fair” (an action with no authorization in the Constitution).

Once was the day when politicians at least pretended to respect the Constitution. This current batch apparently doesn’t see the need. They make no secret of their disdain for the document nor try to hide their intentions to ignore its limitations. They clearly consider themselves above the law and beyond being accountable to the people.

Fortunately there is a move afoot to stop viewing Washington, D.C. oligarchs as having any legitimate authority. There are alternatives — Constitutional alternatives.

Hope you had a good Constitution Day.

Thideology News of the Day

Every day the news reveals new and inventive assaults by the federal government of the United States on American liberty. Elements of the government are dead set on taking over health care — regardless of the desires of the citizenry and despite the clearly documented failures of similar systems in the U.K. and Canada. But this government is busy, not quite satisfied to assault one liberty at a time. Oh no, this government has employed a multi-pronged attack. Consider…

• The assault on the right to bear arms
• The assault on free speech

And that’s just the two items I ran across this morning. However, there is some good news and some really good news…

The Good News

Many Americans are not taking these assaults lying down. They are rising up, proclaiming their liberty in the face of those who would tyrannize us, and refusing to quietly submit to the illegitimate “authority” of government bureaucrats.

The Really Good News

God is in control.

Take heart in knowing that the federal government will not exercise one ounce of power that God does not allow. It may yet be unpleasant — but it’s not out of God’s control. Remember, God allowed Israel to be captured by Babylon. He allowed the destruction of the Temple. But this He did for the preservation of His people. God may yet allow the destruction of the United States as we know it. He may allow tyrants to take control and rule a once free land. But He has promised to preserve His people. He has promised to save His church.

Make no mistake, God is in control. He is sovereign — a term described at monergism.com like this:

[God's sovereignty] simply refers to the fact that all things are under His rule and control, and that nothing happens in this Universe without His direction or permission. He is a God Who works, not just some things, but all things after the counsel of His own will (see Eph. 1:11). God’s purpose is all- inclusive and is never thwarted (see Isa. 46:11). Nothing Takes Him by Surprise.

The monergism website has a lot to say about God’s sovereignty and provides this nice overview of how scripture testifies of God’s sovereignty over every aspect of life on earth:

• God is sovereign over the entire universe: Ps 103:19; Rom 8:28; Eph 1:11
• God is sovereign over all of nature: Ps 135:6-7; Mt 5:45; 6:25-30
• God is sovereign over angels & Satan: Ps 103:20-21; Job 1:12
• God is sovereign over nations: Ps 47:7-9; Dan 2:20-21; 4:34-35
• God is sovereign over human beings: 1 Sam 2:6-7; Gal 1:15-16
• God is sovereign over animals: Ps 104:21-30; 1 Ki 17:4-6
• God is sovereign over “accidents”: Pr 16:33; Jon 1:7; Mt 10:29
• God is sovereign over free acts of men: Ex 3:21; 12:25-36; Ez 7:27
• God is sovereign over sinful acts of men and Satan: 2 Sam 24:1; 1 Chr 21:1; Gen 45:5; 50:20

What an incredible encouragement this should be.

Bumper Sticker of the Day

Thideology News of the Day

Manipulating a death for political purposes

Proponents of socialized medicine in the United States did not wait long to capitalize on the recent death of Senator Ted Kennedy. They are using his death as an emotional tool in an attempt to garner support for the Democrats’ attempts to nationalize all health care in the United States. They are doing this under the guise of “honoring” Ted Kennedy.

I’ve already pointed out several reasons I oppose government run health care. But this new development deserves one additional comment…

With all due respect, my life — and the lives of my family members — are NOT raw material with which you may build a monument to anyone. I regard attempts to nationalize health care as a direct assault on my life and the lives of those in my family. The federal government has no authority to step in between me and my doctors. The decisions regarding my health and medical care are mine and mine alone. Government intervention in this will severely limit the options available to me, will make my attempts to purchase medical treatment a “government matter” fraught with bureaucratic peril and could, quite literally, end up costing me my life. I have never, nor do I now, consent to having this portion of my life controlled by anyone else.

If you want to honor Ted Kennedy that’s fine. Use your own money, your own resources and leave me out of it.

Government intervention in education

A New Hampshire court has ordered a homeschooled girl into public schools, in part because her Christian faith (as taught to her by her mother) is a, “bit too sincerely held and must be sifted, tested by, and mixed among other worldviews.”

Some questions:

1. Who has the ultimate authority over a child’s education? Answer: Parents
2. Does the state have the authority to determine whether or not a person’s Christian beliefs are a “bit too sincerely held” and whether or not that faith should be “sifted, tested by, and mixed among other worldviews?” Answer: Absolutely NOT
3. Did you ever think this kind of totalitarian behavior would show up in the United States?

Religious Roots of Liberty

Too many Americans have forgotten what real liberty is. They’ve also forgotten the origins of liberty. Fortunately some of us still remember. Now if we can just remind the others.

Quote of the day

One of my favorite reformed theology websites, monergism.com, has recently been redesigned. While checking it out I ran across a quote from John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion that I think bears repeating here.

“The human will does not obtain grace by freedom, but obtains freedom by grace.”
- Calvin’s Institutes II.III quoting Augustine

What remarkable things God accomplished through both Calvin and Augustine. To God alone belongs the glory.

The real face of “universal” health care

There are many advocates of government-run “universal” health care. They advocate it because, they say, everyone has a “right” to health care.

I am adamantly opposed to government-run “universal” health care. You may have seen some of the reasons many like me oppose the idea: Government-run “universal” health care will result in…

• The rationing of health care
• Exploding costs
• Medical decisions being made by federal bureaucrats rather than doctors and patients
• A lower quality of health care
• The creation of many more bloated, out-of-control government bureaucracies

I oppose it for these reasons, too — but not primarily for these reasons. No, I oppose government-run “universal” health care primarily because I am absolutely opposed to slavery.

Huh?

You read that right. Because I abhor the practice of slavery I could never support it in the form of government-run “universal” health care.

How are the two even connected?

It’s really quite simple when you stop long enough to consider it. What it really boils down to is what is and is not a “right.”

The Declaration of Independence is brilliant in its wording.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Note these rights are few yet comprehensive. We have a right to our life, we have a right to our liberty, and we have a right to pursue our own happiness. Basically, as long as we do not infringe on the rights of others in the process, we can do whatever we want. Also note these rights occur in nature. We have them by virtue of our birth. They are provided by God. They are innate. They are intrinsic. They belong to us.

Now, consider what the supporters of government-run “universal” health care consider “rights.”

Obviously they think health care is a right. But often these same people will say everyone has a right to…

• A house
• A good job
• Three meals a day
• A “living” wage
• An education
• Reliable transportation

The list can go on.

But do you see the difference?

In her book, “The Virtue of Selfishness,” author Ayn Rand took a similar list of proposed “rights” and exposed it for what it is by asking a simple question at the end of each stated “right.”

At whose expense?

You think you have a right to a house? At whose expense?

You have a right to three meals a day? At whose expense?

Add that question to the end of each “right” and you begin to realize there is a difference between what the founders regarded as rights and what modern politicians often regard as rights.

This new list of “rights” does not occur in nature. They are the result of someone’s labor. Someone has to produce a house. Someone has to provide meals. And, if you claim that person A has a right to a house you then, by default, are claiming they are entitled to the product of person B’s labor. Which makes person B a slave.

This is what government-run “universal” health care is. It is slavery. If one person has a “right” to health care then the person who provides health care becomes a slave — because the product of their labor is not their own.

I know there are many who would say, “That’s ridiculous. Doctors get paid for their services.”

Really?

Slave owners have always made a similar argument. “Slaves,” they would say, “are treated fairly. They are given food, housing and clothes. They are compensated.”

Aha, but we both know the slaves did not get to dictate the terms of the exchange.

Neither do the health care providers in a socialized medical system. Bureaucrats determine the terms by which they will deliver their services and to whom they will be delivered. They can’t charge what they want and they can’t refuse service if they’d like. In fact, most of the decisions free people make about their own lives are taken away from those who provide health care (and from those who receive it) in this kind of system. It’s slavery.

And, I think it’s fair to say, if you support government-run “universal” health care you support slavery — at least in principle. Sure, you probably reject the kind of slavery that existed in America for a couple of hundred years. But, if you support government-run “universal” health care, you’re really just quibbling over the degree to which an individual is enslaved.

I realize many Christians maintain the Bible supports this sort of socialized nonsense. They especially like this passage…

“And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.” — Acts 2:42-47

They claim this passage supports socialism because the early Christians pooled all of their resources and shared everything equally. Yes, these Christians did that. However, they were not mandated to do this by the government and they still had private property (Note how they broke bread in “their homes”).

Some continue to argue that God judged Ananias and Sapphira because they did not participate fully in the communist ideal of the early church. They pretended to give all of their possessions but secretly withheld some for themselves.

But Scripture does not bear this out. Peter even affirmed Ananias and Sapphira’s control over their property when he said:

“While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” — Acts 5:4

They were judged because they lied to God. They wanted to appear great in the eyes of men for giving everything they had while holding back. Peter’s comments confirm that they were under no obligation to do this.

But doesn’t the Bible tell us to care for the sick?

Yep.

But it never gives that responsibility to the government. It is always given to individuals or the church. Sorry, but a compelling case for socialized medicine can’t be made from Scripture.

The bottom line is this: Government-run “universal” health care has been an abject failure everywhere it has been tried. We have plenty of examples that confirm this fact. It is immoral on a number of levels and it is not biblical. And, in light of all of that, I think it is fair to question the motives of those who support it.

Singing Praises to whom?

On the Sunday closest to Independence Day churches all across America hold, what they like to call, “Patriotic Services.” These services were among my very favorite when I was growing up. No more.

God has saved us for His own glory. The church’s sole purpose is to glorify God. What must Jesus think when the people who bear His name — the people for whom He gave His very life — come together on a day and in a place set aside for the worship of God and, instead, sing praises to another?

Lawrence Vance and Jeffery Tucker have both written wonderful pieces that go more in depth on this subject.

It is a subject worth consideration, yes?

There are those who will say I am “unpatriotic” or an “America hater” for expressing such a view. Nothing could be further from the truth. I love America (that does not mean the government — but that’s a topic for another time). But my love for America fades into obscurity when compared with my love for God.

Lawrence Vance concludes his essay this way…

“Instead of worrying about the First Amendment, Christians should be more concerned about the First Commandment. The Lord demands that no gods be put before him – inside or outside of church. God will not give his glory to another (Isaiah 42:8, 48:11).”

Amen.

Corresponding Celebrations

The 4th of July is the day Americans celebrate Independence Day — a commemoration of the signing of the Declaration of Independence which established the 13 colonies as independent and sovereign nations no longer under the rule of England. This bit of history is well known to most Americans. What is not as well known to Americans is another bit of history that is also commemorated in July.

John Calvin’s birthday.

In fact, this year (2009), is Calvin’s 500th birthday and it’s a pretty big deal. There are events scheduled all around the world celebrating the contributions of one of the most influential reformers. His collective works are being made available for people to read and re-read. His best-known work, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, remains one of the very best and accurate explanations of Christian theology ever written. But, you may be wondering, why should Americans care one way or the other about John Calvin’s 500th birthday. Well, I’ll tell you…

But let me first ask you a couple of simple civics questions:

1. Why did America’s founders write the Constitution?
2. Why are there three branches of government?

• Answer 1: To limit the federal government to a very few, specifically numerated tasks.
• Answer 2: Because the founders knew power was something no one person (or group of people) should have all to themselves. Competing power groups would, in theory, keep any one of the groups from becoming too powerful. It’s what we call the checks and balances on government power.

So, what does John Calvin have to do with any of that?

Everything.

John Calvin was instrumental in recapturing the biblical doctrine of Total Depravity — the idea that man is sinful by nature, completely undone and captive to his own evil desires. And, because of this understanding of the nature of man, Calvin developed in Geneva, Switzerland a system of government that limited a man’s ability to rule over other men. He established a government of divided power.

He also articulated the idea that there is a law higher than any man-made law and that all men are subject to the higher law first (see Lord of the Law for more details).

John Calvin’s ideas so shaped the thinking of America’s founders that he is often referred to as the “virtual founder of America.”

Misunderstandings about Calvin’s theology have prompted many Christians to vilify him. But whatever your opinion of John Calvin, Americans need to recognize the role he played in the foundation of the United States. Oh, I’m not saying we owe John Calvin anything (and neither would he). He would insist — and I agree — that the credit for the foundation of America goes to God alone. But John Calvin was a tool in God’s hand used for that purpose.

Side Note:

Many churches celebrate Independence Day with “patriotic” hymns. One of the most popular is “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” Unfortunately most Christians do not know the origin of that hymn, nor the theology of it’s author. It’s intent was not to glorify God in any way. The Jesus mentioned in that song is not the Jesus of the Bible. My prayer is that many would take the time to learn about that song and then abandon it altogether as something completely inappropriate to be sung by God’s people.