I was just reading Brian McLaren’s latest post over at God’s Politics, and it had a link to his organization, Red Letter Christians. I’d heard of the group, but didn’t know much about it, so I checked it out. In the first paragraph we read this: “We believe and seek to put in to action the red letter words in the Holy Bible spoken by Jesus.”
Two things about this bother me. First, it makes the letters in the Bible that aren’t in red less important. The Bible prioritizes itself; tell me what is more important: “You shall have no other gods before me,” or, “Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals, and greet no one on the road.” This is a ridiculous example, but one that is implied when you use this red-letter logic. (continue reading…)
This reminds me of this exchange in The Incredibles:
Helen: Everybody’s special.
Dash: That’s just another way of saying nobody is.
The Anchoress calls it “the takeover of mediocrity”:
If the Queen starts talking about how “special” we all are, and how “amazing” everyone looks, the takeover of mediocrity - in language, social discourse, historical reference, etc - will be complete.
What ever happened to the meritocracy that supposedly exists here? People were supposed to advance based on their talents, skills, and a little luck. But now we’re not supposed to acknowledge that some kids are smarter or more gifted than others, because the others might feel inferior. But the problem is, we’re supposed to pretend that every child has equal potential, and that if they work hard, they’ll all achieve greatness.
Unfortunately, that’s not true. Some people will never achieve greatness, even if they work harder than everyone. It’s not society’s fault. Hard work should be rewarded, but success will be rewarded more. You know why? A hardworking and moderately successful businessman won’t produce as much as a lazy but very successful businessman. And if two people work equally hard, the one who’s more successful, more productive, deserves more of the reward.
But that kind of reward structure is on it’s way out in this society. It seems the West is tumbling towards socialism, and there’s not enough traction to stand in its way. Okay, that was a bunch of unfounded paranoia, but you get the point. If everyone’s special then everyone’s normal. We’ll have to start looking for those people who aren’t special.
Jim Wallis & Friends at God’s Politics have spent quite a bit of digital ink throwing stones at James Dobson. Not only do they throw stones at him, but they misrepresent him so as to make a bigger target. Now, I admit that I don’t know much about Dobson, and what I do know I’m not excessively fond of, but that’s beside the point right now.
One of the things they hammer him on is not confronting or speaking out against Republicans in sex scandals. So why no love for this exchange with Newt Gingrich?
James Dobson: [In a private meeting a few weeks ago,] I asked you a pretty bold question. And I appreciate the fact that you didn’t seem offended by it. But I asked you if the rumors were true that you were in an affair with a woman obviously who wasn’t your wife at the same time that Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky were having their escapade.
Newt Gingrich: Well, the fact is that the honest answer is yes. But it was not related to what happened. And this is one of the things the Left tries to do and one of the places where, frankly, I think the way this report of the special counsel was written weakened the case.
I drew a line in my mind that said, “Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept felonies and you cannot accept perjury in your highest officials.”
Dobson: Well, you answered that question with regard to Bill Clinton instead of referring to yourself. May I ask you to address it personally? You know, I believe you to be a professing Christian and you and I have prayed together, but when I heard you talk about this dark side of your life when we were in Washington, you spoke of it with a great deal of pain and anguish, but you didn’t mention repentance. Do you understand that word, repentance?
Could this expose the fact that for all their talking about how Jesus is “neither Republican or Democrat”, they’re as partisan as MoveOn.org?
Your Taxes Explained
A lesson in economics.
TAX System Explained In Simple Terms
Sometimes politicians, journalists and others exclaim; “It’s just a tax
cut for the rich!” and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does
that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully. Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all
ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
a.. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
b.. The fifth would pay $1.
c.. The sixth would pay $3.
d.. The seventh would pay $7.
e.. The eighth would pay $12.
f.. The ninth would pay $18.
g.. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the
restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.” Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free, but what about the other six men, the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
a.. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
b.. The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
c.. The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
d.. The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
e.. The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
f.. The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar,
too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than me!”
“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, PhD
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
Gotcha!
Hat tip: Mahatma Dandhi
One of the biggest problems affecting “conversation” and “dialogue” between progressives and conservatives, especially when Christians are involved, is that no one seems to understand the difference between social ethics and Christian morality.
The left is convinced that the church needs to adhere to contemporary Western culture’s ethical standards. Wherever they go, the church should go as well. The right is likewise convinced that the church needs to make society conform to (its particular version of) Christian morality. Both sides are wrong.
“Do not be conformed to the pattern of this world…” Paul’s statement in Romans is something that progressives would do well to focus on. The left wing of the church is getting co-opted by liberal ideals. Pluralism, feminism, reversed or merged gender roles and altered gender identity…all these have moved from society to the church.
There’s no place in the church for the acceptance of other gods or religious practices. And for any official church leader to say that there is salvation outside of Christ is…brace yourself…heresy. We don’t like to use that word; there’s just something about clearly calling out someone’s error that bothers our contemporary sensibilities.
God lays out pretty particular roles for the genders. They’re clear in Scripture and biology. Men are called and created to lead, protect, to be the head of woman as Christ is the head of the church. There’s more, but that argument is for another place. Western feminism though, is pushing for not only gender equality, but for the total interchangeability of the sexes. That’s led to the progressive Christian movement ordaining women as a norm rather than an exception, against the example of Scripture.
As with Newton’s Third Law (”For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”), the right has done the same type of stupid stuff. Pushing for things such as school prayer, making same-sex unions illegal, and making women feel as though they “should” (read: must) be stay-at-home moms are ridiculous intrusions into the pluralistic world of civil ethics.
Ethics deals with right and wrong in our society, which is a mishmash of cultures and religions, and we need to be conscious of those around us with different beliefs. Christian morality is based in the Bible, and for believers there can be no other standard; but while that standard comes from the God of all mankind, we only apply it to those who’ve heard and accepted His truth, because the unregenerate mind is incapable of accepting it.
These two concepts can interact just fine in society today. For me it looks something like this: The Bible speaks negatively about the issue of homosexuality. It receives no positive treatment in Scripture. On top of that, the examples of Scripture support a marriage of one man and one woman (1 Cor 7). However, I can think of no ethical reason to deny homosexuals the right to enter into a contract similar to marriage. But the church should not bless same-sex unions. This is just one example.
My biggest pet peeve is that both sides claim the moral high ground in living as Christ wanted, but no one is following the most important of Jesus commands. The right would say that the most important part of Christianity is to “be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect,” while the left would say loving our neighbor is most important. They’re both wrong.
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’This is the first and greatest commandment.” Matt. 22:36-38
Loving God is more important than loving our neighbor. It’s more important than personal holiness. Without a surpassing love for God, neither of those things means anything. How do we love God? We obey His commands. We glorify His name. We love the good, shun evil, and devote ourselves entirely to the Kingdom.
Loving our neighbor is an idol to the left. It’s taken on a whole new meaning. To the progressive movement it means accepting them and their sins. But if we truly love them we’ll confront their sinfulness, so they can repent and turn to God. Holiness is an idol to the right. But it manifests itself not in true holiness, which is characterized by servanthood and humility, but in the self-righteousness of the Pharisees. Pretending to have no struggles is not holiness.
Both sides have a long way to go in understanding the meaning of love and holiness.
“For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?” If we raise someone out of poverty, but don’t teach her to love and follow God, and to keep his commands, she is still lost to eternity. Likewise if we teach someone to follow all of the rules but they don’t have love for God or compassion for others, he is also lost to eternity.
Until we start talking about the same things, our debates will continue to be meaningless posturing and shouting matches. Let’s get on the same page.
Blogs4God
