Rss

  • youtube

Statistics: Facts often used to replace truth.

Posted by :admin On : September 12, 2014
2

Category: Archives, Government, Truth

Leonard Pitts’ recent syndicated column was provocatively titled “If GOP is so right, why are red states so far behind?” Pitts raised the question because of the results of a recent study by two Princeton economists that found the economy has grown faster under Democratic presidents. From President Kennedy to and including President Obama the economy grew at 4.35 percent as compared to 2.54 percent growth under Republican presidents during the same period. He also pointed to a statistic supplied by Occupy Democrats, a left-wing advocacy group, that of the ten poorest states, nine are red states and of the poorest 100 counties, ninety seven are in red states. Based on the report’s statistical revelations, Pitts asked several questions, “If Republican fiscal policies really are the key to prosperity, if the GOP formula of low taxes and little regulation really does unleash economic growth, then why has the country fared better under Democratic presidents than Republican ones and why are red states the poorest states in the country?”[1]

To be fair, Mr. Pitts does note that the ability of presidents to influence the economy is “vastly overstated.” He even cites the Princeton researchers who stated that their study does not support the idea that Democratic policies are responsible for greater economic performance under Democratic presidents. Further, he concedes that red states and counties tend to be more rural and likely to have modest incomes while at the same time may enjoy greater spending power than wealthier states and counties. Yet, Mr. Pitts can’t resist the assumption that the fiscal economic policies of the Republicans are inferior to those of the Democrats. He states that, “…the starkness and sheer preponderance of the numbers are hard to ignore.” After comparing the true blue state of Connecticut’s first place in per capita income of $56,000 with red-state Mississippi’s last place at $32,000, Pitts says that, “At the very least, stats like these ought to call into question GOP claims of superior economic policy…”[2]

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, d**n lies, and statistics.” Mark Twain popularized this quote in America but attributed it to former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. How does one lie with statistics? One way is to erroneously assume a correlation between two variables and simply imply that one causes the other. Although Mr. Pitts agrees that the study’s findings do not support the idea that there is a correlation between the economic policies of Democratic presidents and the above-mentioned superior economic statistics, that is, one does not cause the other, he does believe that, given the sheer magnitude of the numbers, we must assume there is some correlation between the economic policies of Republican presidents and the lesser economic growth experience thereunder.[3]

Mr. Pitts has not lied (in a manner suggested by Twain), but he has been seduced by the power of statistical “facts” and as a consequence has “…drawn a mathematically precise line from an unwarranted assumption to a foregone conclusion.”[4] To summarize, Mr. Pitts’ conclusion is that, although the statistics provide no correlation between superior economic performance and the economic policies of Democrat presidents, the statistics must almost certainly provide correlation between the Republicans’ lesser economic results and their economic policies. Therefore, Republican economic policies are linked in some unexplained manner with the poorer results and consequently must undermine Republican claims of superior economic policies. Calling the Republican claims of superior economic policies as “overblown, at best,” Mr. Pitts ends his column with a challenge. “If that’s not the case, I would appreciate it if some Republican would explain why.”

If Mr. Pitts had done his homework, he would have found the explanation given by another nationally syndicated columnist less than ten days earlier. Robert Samuelson has written about business and economic issues since 1977. He is the author of three books on the American economy, a columnist for the Washington Post, and formerly was a columnist for Newsweek magazine for twenty-five years. Like Pitts, Samuelson also wrote a column about the Princeton study which he titled “Do Dems run the economy better? Nope.”[5]

Samuelson’s interpretation of the results of the Princeton study was very different than that of Pitts. Samuelson stated that “Democrats would no doubt like to attribute the large…growth gap to macroeconomic policy choices, but the data do not support such a claim.” Samuelson called about half of the gap that favored Democrats attributable to their “good luck” with regard to outside events or trends beyond their control. Three of those events and trends that dominated (and whose timing favored Democrats) were the global oil shocks that hurt Republicans more than Democrats, productivity gains, and military buildups that boosted economic growth.[6]

To the Princeton researchers the cause of the remaining half of the gap favoring the Democrats is a mystery. But for Samuelson the reasons were obvious and contrary to what the study’s statistics seem to suggest. He explained that, “Democrats focus more on jobs; Republicans more on inflation. What resulted was a cycle in which Democratic presidents tended to preside over expansions (usually worsening inflation) and Republicans suffered recessions (usually dampening inflation).” Without thoughtful interpretation, the surface implications of the Princeton study suggest that the “…economy’s performance during a president’s tenure in office is a good test of the soundness of policies.” Samuelson disagreed and explained that there is a long lag between the adoption of policies under a current administration and their true effects over time (usually after the administration has left office). He points out that expansive policies that feed an economic boom spawn hurtful consequences (e.g., inflation and overconfidence resulting in financial crises) that must be addressed with more painful policies, usually during the next administration. However, those painful policies can (and generally do) result in long-term dividends.[7]

Samuelson’s diagnosis of America’s economic roller coaster is somewhat akin to the analogy of visits of grandchildren to permissive, over-indulgent grandparents. It’s party time for the grandkids. High sugar diets, new toys, fun and games, few rules, and a good time is had by all. However, when mom and dad pick up the kids, they have to deal with the belly aches, renew and enforce rules and restraints, and re-establish the connections between work-reward and rebellion-consequences. In other words, the kids must return to the real world under mom and dad’s rule. For close to six decades Americans have ridden the economic roller coaster, alternately driven by Democratic children and their Republican parents. Hopefully, the American electorate will eventually understand the cause of much of America’s economic ups and downs. If so, there is hope for Republican economic prescriptions.

In the information age, facts have grown exponentially. We have become a fact driven society. Richard M. Weaver wrote, “One notes that in everyday speech the word fact has taken the place of truth…And the public is being taught systematically to make this fatal confusion of factual particulars with wisdom…The acquisition of unrelated details becomes an end in itself and takes the place of the true ideal of education.”[8] The myopic acquisition of unrelated details by a society results in fragmentation through loss of wisdom. Such societies retreat from the glorious heights from which one can clearly see truth and descend into a forest of facts—minutiae that hide truth and ultimately destroy in men’s minds that even the concept of truth exists.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] Leonard Pitts, “If GOP is so right, why are red states so far behind?” Tulsa World, September 4, 2014, A-13.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Leonard Louis Levinson, The Left Handed Dictionary, (New York: Collier Books, 1963), p. 218.
[5] Robert J. Samuelson, “Do Dems run the economy better? Nope.” The Washington Post, August 24, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-do-democrats-run-the-economy-better-nope/2014/08/24/1e3d847c-2a0c-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html (accessed September 5, 2014).
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences, (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1948), p. 58.

Seduction of the American Church

Posted by :admin On : September 5, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Truth

This article should be of interest to Christians and those who may not be Christians by confession and lifestyle but who believe in the importance of maintaining a biblical Christian worldview in America. Christians are the church. The church is not the buildings or organizations that serve the church body. So when we speak of the seduction of the church, we are speaking of the seduction of individual Christians and particularly the leadership of churches and other Christian organizations.

To seduce means to lead away, to persuade to disobedience or disloyalty, or to lead astray. Only one of its definitions refers to the enticement into unchastity.[1] Seduction was Satan’s original weapon used to attack God by separating man from Him. At his first encounter with Eve in the Garden, Satan’s seductive words led Eve into disobedience and disloyalty to God. Seduction worked well because God gave man a free will. Man can choose to obey or not. To love God is to obey Him, but to disobey is sin which results in separation from God. That is Satan’s purpose, to separate man from God.

However, man was not created stupid. He soon reasoned that separation from God led to pain, misery, emptiness of soul, loneliness, and death without God. Therefore, Satan created a new god for fallen man to worship and obey—the god of self. Self would be deified and worshiped in the temple of humanism. Man would be liberated from the need to obey anyone but the new god of self. However, man found that liberation of self merely anesthetized the symptoms of disobedience and separation from God. Soon the morphia of power, wealth, and pleasure wears off and the suffering and loneliness return along with the reappearance of the hideous specter of death apart from God.

The greatest threat to Satan’s seduction of mankind is the empowered and obedient church of Jesus Christ. Frontal attacks against the church are of no avail. Therefore, Satan again resorts to seduction, his most trusted and lethal weapon. Satan’s strategy is to defeat the church by subtly injecting the god of self into the church body. It is the little foxes that destroy the vine. At first he encourages a little compromise here and there. Mix in bit of disunity. Allude to the harshness and inflexibility of the Bible. Question the relevancy of the Bible and the church in light of modern problems. Concentrate the churches’ focus and efforts substantially if not exclusively on the temporal problems and injustices in the world. Attempt to discredit the truth of the Bible through science and psychology. Finally, the church elevates self above God. The new church is now consumer-oriented, and its patrons are clients to be pampered. The gospel is softened so as not to offend. Therapy replaces salvation in dealing with sin. Worship becomes entertainment. Commitment becomes optional as church attendance for many is limited to an hour or two on Sunday mornings a couple of times a month. The gospel of self-improvement is preached instead of the word of God found in the Bible.

David Wilkerson (1931-2011) was the author of the best-selling The Cross and Switchblade and was the founder of Teen Challenge addiction recovery program with centers found in many countries of the world. The recovery rate for its residents exceeds 80%, one of the highest among similar organization. Formerly the pastor of Times Square Church in New York City, Wilkerson preached a sermon in 1998 titled “The Dangers of the Gospel of Accommodation” in which he described the seduction of the modern church in the United States.

A gospel of accommodation is creeping into the United States. It’s an American cultural invention to appease the lifestyle of luxury and pleasure. Primarily a Caucasian, suburban gospel, it’s also in our major cities and is sweeping the nation, influencing ministers of every denomination, and giving birth to megachurches with thousands who come to hear a non-confronting message. It’s an adaptable gospel that is spoon-fed through humorous skits, drama, and short, nonabrasive sermonettes on how to cope—called a seeker-friendly or sinner-friendly or sinner-friendly gospel…The gospel of Jesus Christ has always been confronting—there is no such thing as a friendly gospel but a friendly grace. [emphasis added]

If you are a young man and have certain skills, you find those skills and a part of the city that would best suit you. You move into that area, poll it, and find out what the nonchurchgoers want. “You don’t like choirs. Well, would you go to a church that didn’t have a choir? Yes. You don’t like to wear suits. Would you go where it’s informal? Yes.” Then you go to your computer and design a gospel that will not confront but will shoot out the desires and the needs of the people…then you design your message to help people cope with their needs. The program you design is intended to make the church comfortable and friendly for all sinners who wish to attend.[2]

Wilkerson spoke of three things that identify the heart of the gospel of accommodation:

The accommodation of man’s love for pleasure – “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers…of pleasures more that lovers of God.” [2 Timothy 3:1-4. KJV].

The accommodation of all man’s aversion to self-denial – Jesus said, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.” [Matthew 16:24. KJV]

The accommodation to man’s offense to the gospel – An accommodating gospel is the way of cheap grace. As Wilkerson described it, “It’s cruel, pastor, to lead sinners to the Cross, tell them they are forgiven by faith, and then allow them to go back to their habits and lusts of the flesh, unchanged and still in the devil’s shackles.”[3]

A recent variant of the accommodating church is the multisite electronic church. One such church has multiple campuses in the metro area, others around the state, and is establishing new churches out of state. The total combined attendance on a recent Sunday morning was reported to be 79,000. Each site may have as many as eight one-hour services on any given Sunday; each tightly packed with rock-concert style worship, simultaneous water baptisms, and a video message from the senior pastor. The founder and senior pastor explained that “…the service is designed to appeal to unchurched people, with casual dress, refreshments in the sanctuary, and a concert-like atmosphere. We’ve found that a lot of unchurched people love to go to concerts, and so our worship experience is very concert-like. There’s intelligent lighting, great sound systems…We’re not doing church for church people…” The pastor defends the accommodating nature of the church services by explaining that every service ends with an invitation to make a commitment to Christ.[4] One wonders if those making the commitments understand that a genuine commitment to Christ leads to the cross and ultimately death to self. Paul’s letter to the Galatians makes this clear. “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, wo loved me and gave himself for me.” [Galatians 2:20. RSV]

Often the gospel preached by the accommodating church tends to perversion or denial of biblical truth over time. A recent example has been a significant topic of discussion in the church world with regards to comments to the congregants by the wife of a pastor of a large Texas megachurch. With her nearby pastor-husband’s nodding approval, she said,

I just want to encourage every one of us to realize when we obey God, we’re not doing it for God—I mean, that’s one way to look at it—we’re doing it for ourselves, because God takes pleasure when we’re happy. That’s the thing that gives Him the greatest joy…So, I want you to know this morning: Just do good for your own self. Do good because God wants you to be happy. When you come to church, when you worship Him, you’re not doing it for God really. You’re doing it for yourself, because that’s what makes God happy. Amen?[5]

This particular ministry had a Godly Christian heritage and history. But the siren song of power, popularity, and success has seduced the new generation to bow to the god of self. Paul in his first letter to Timothy warned of the days in which some of the American church presently finds themselves. “Now the spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared…” [1 Timothy 4:1-2. RSV] Many leaders and congregants in the American church have been seduced by Satan and are following the path described by Paul which results in a powerlessness and apostate church destined for judgment and eternal damnation.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] “seduce,” Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, (Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company, 1963), p. 781.
[2] David Wilkerson, “The Dangers of the Gospel of Accommodation,” Assemblies of God Enrichment Journal, http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/199901/078_accommodation.cfm (accessed September 2, 2014).
[3] Ibid.
[4] Bill Sherman, “Growing in faith,” Tulsa World, August 17, 2014, A-1.
[5] Heather Clark, “‘Do good for yourself’ Osteen Says. Obedience, worship ‘Not for God’.” Christian News Network, August 28, 2014. http://christiannews.net/2014/08/28/do-good-for-your-own-self-osteen-says-obedience-worship-not-for-god-video/ (accessed September 2, 2014).

Why I believe

Posted by :admin On : August 29, 2014
1

Category: Archives, Christianity, Truth

A child-like faith

I became a Christian as a child of six. Owasso was a tiny little hamlet of about 250 people, barely four blocks long and two blocks wide straddling a two-lane concrete highway meandering southward towards Tulsa through the perennially-flooding bottom lands and across an old bridge over Bird Creek. This little wide spot in the road had two or three churches, a grocery or two, a school, a collection of small houses, and not much else. Our children’s church teacher and her husband (a nonbeliever) were dairy farmers as were my parents and as my mother’s parents had been. Our teacher helped with the milking and some of the farm work, but on Sunday mornings after chores, she would pick up her grandchildren and any other neighbor kids that were so inclined and take them to church. I still remember well those Sunday mornings when she taught us flannel graph stories from the Bible including Noah, Moses, Joseph, David and Goliath, and Daniel in the Lion’s Den. She mixed in her own stories of “Barney in the Barrel,” “The Little Red Hen,” and others, all reflecting the truth of Christ’s love for each of us.

One Sunday morning she asked if any of us (probably about eight or nine in attendance that morning) would like to accept Jesus into their heart. I moved from the back row of three homemade benches and came to the front and accepted Him as my Lord and Savior. Why did I believe? Some will say my child’s faith was mere emotional manipulation. Others will say it was the Christian influence of family and friends to conform. But the Bible gives the real reason. I believed because my child-like faith responded to the gentle wooing of the Holy Spirit. Luke recorded Christ’s words as He described the utmost importance of a child-like faith, “Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” [Luke 18:17. RSV]

Reason

As we grow physically and mentally, our child-like faith must not remain static. Since that day I moved from the back bench to publicly profess my belief, my faith has grown and continues to grow because of reason. Right reason applied to my observations and experiences in the light of the biblical revelation and divine guidance increases my faith and helps me in my everyday life’s walk of faith. Life happens, and bad things happen to people who are faithful to God. How should Christians respond when they experience the trials of life such as when a spouse unexpectedly files for divorce, the death of a child or spouse, loss of job, betrayal by friends, and agonizing pain or loss of health? Here, right reason helps sustain faith in times of adversity. The believer continues to believe because he or she knows the truth of God’s word and because their life’s observations and experiences substantiate the truth upon which their faith rests. All the while the world shouts that there can be no faith in a God who would allow such tragedies, but the world only sees the natural and temporal. Faith transcends the natural to the realm and reality of the supernatural. The Apostle Paul wrote of how Christians should deal with the difficulties of life in their faith walk.

How weary we grow of our present bodies. That is why we look forward eagerly to the day when we shall have heavenly bodies which we shall put on like new clothes. For we shall not be merely spirits without bodies. These earthly bodies make us groan and sigh, but we wouldn’t like to think of dying and having no bodies at all. We want to slip into our new bodies so that these dying bodies will, as it were, be swallowed up by everlasting life. This is what God has prepared for us and, as a guarantee, he has given us his Holy Spirit. Now we look forward with confidence to our heavenly bodies, realizing that every moment we spend in these earthly bodies is time spent away from our eternal home in heaven with Jesus. We know these things are true by believing and not by seeing. [2 Corinthians 5:2-7. Living Bible]

Is Paul saying that faith is blind and denies reason? Absolutely not. Paul is speaking of the eternal hope of the Christian in spite of present circumstances. Faith is not an abandonment of reason. C. S. Lewis challenged the widespread assumption that there is a battle between faith and reason, “It is not reason that is taking away my faith: on the contrary, my faith is based on reason. It is my imagination and emotions [that attack faith]. The battle is between faith and reason on one side and emotion and imagination on the other.”[1]

Reason is an ally of faith. Our observations and experiences of life aided by right reasoning lead us to belief in the truth of Christianity and all upon which it rests in spite of circumstances. In one sense reason leads us to the door of Christianity, but faith invites us in and holds our hand as we continue the faith journey. However, reason was not left at the door. As we move along our faith journey, we encounter life—all sorts of thoughts, ideas, things, situations, difficulties, trials, struggles, disappointments, opportunities, and so forth. At that point reason continues to assist and guide within the framework of truths we hold and have incorporated into our faith walk. In this sense, reason helps us to accept the seemingly unreasonable as we search the Bible, pray for Divine guidance, and work out our own salvation.[2]

Lewis captures well the linkage between faith and reason when he wrote that faith “…is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.”[3] It is not blind faith but a faith that is supported and increased through right reason. In time faith grows to be more important to our belief in the God of the Bible than our reasoning ability. Faith never abandons reason for it continues to play a secondary and supporting role. As faith grows and reason diminishes, reason has helped us come full circle once again to a child-like faith, and through faith we can withstand changes in our moods, our failures, our doubts, our circumstances, or any other of life’s challenges.

I believed because of a child-like faith. I continue to believe and my faith grows as right reason filters my observations and experiences in life in the light of the biblical revelation and divine guidance. However, there is a third reason I believe.

Best evidence

We humans have an insatiable thirst for truth about the meaning and purpose of life. Man has always recognized a divine order in the universe, nature, and human relationships. The more science reveals about the earth’s exquisite and complex order, the greater the evidence for a supernatural creator of that apparent order. Those that deny a supernatural creator continue to search for an over-arching theory of everything. For them the universe nothing more than a cosmic box full of puzzle pieces in which each piece must to be analyzed in its minutest detail. Once understood, the pieces can be fitted together to answer the basic questions of life, all of which is to be accomplished without help from a mythical God. In their attempts to fit the pieces together, often forcing un-natural and harmful configurations, they focus on the minutia, constantly arranging and rearranging, and end with meaningless patterns which reveal neither truth nor offer satisfactions demanded. Richard Weaver diagnosed modern man’s affliction which he described as a “…severe fragmentation of his world picture…which leads directly to an obsession with isolated parts.”[4]

The Bible is a book of history, poetry, prophecy, parable, and allegory in which God reveals Himself and paints the grand mural of the creation, the purpose of man, our present sorrow, the means of redemption, and our eternal destination.[5] It is the unifying picture on the puzzle box which in one grand sweep makes sense of everything in man’s experience since his creation. However, the picture is not enough for it is prescriptive and must be applied by each human being in order to fit the pieces together in a way that gives meaning, purpose, and satisfaction in this life and the next.

In spite of all the protestations of humanists, Darwinists, atheists, intellectuals, pundits, false religions, and others, the long view of man’s sordid history on this planet and the heart-breaking immediacy of the world’s pain and suffering revealed by today’s 24/7 news cycle point to man’s failed efforts to answer the basic questions of life with false philosophies and religions that deny the God of the Bible. It is the biblical revelation that gives the best explanation and evidence of who we are, what went wrong with the world, and how we can get out of the mess we are in. This is the third reason why I believe.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] C. S. Lewis, The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics, Mere Christianity, (New York: Harper One, 2002), p. 116.
[2] Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods-Humanism and Christianity-The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), p. 111.
[3] Lewis., pp. 115-117.
[4] Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences,” (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1948), p. 59.
[5] Johnson, p. 176.

The most powerful weapon

Posted by :admin On : August 22, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Truth

The terrorist will argue that the bomb is the most powerful weapon. Who can dispute the destructive power of a nuclear bomb? Others will declare the airplane or drone is the most powerful weapon because those deliver the bombs and without the means of delivery their explosive power would be dormant or ineffective.

Yet, others will say that the question of power overlooks the greater question of purpose. The target for which a weapon is used is the more important consideration than the power of the weapon itself. The assassin may prefer the thrust of a well-aimed stiletto, for the garrotter the seemingly innocuous cord is the weapon of choice, and for the timid or less-strong a few grams of cyanide in the victim’s cocoa will suffice. And we must not forget the megalomaniac or neighborhood bully’s invisible weapons of fear and intimidation.

A third group will submit that it is not a question of the powerfulness of a weapon or choosing the correct weapon to fit the target. Rather, the important thing is that a weapon is not inherently evil in itself but can be used for both good or ill. The laser used to destroy enemies can destroy the cataract to improve sight. The poison of chemo-therapy kills the cancerous portions of the body in order to sustain the larger organism. The bullet that kills the dictator bent on genocide may save thousands of lives.

Weapons evolve over time. The first weapons were blunt instruments (fists, stones, or clubs) and still favored in some detective stories. The up-close-and-personal blunt instrument was replaced by the more impersonal projectile (the arrow, the bullet, and the bomb). Through man’s ingenuity and industriousness, each generation of weapons provides new ways to oppress, maim, and kill. In time all weapons deteriorate and become ineffective. Even the bully’s power fades, and he is replaced by a younger, stronger thug. Although weapons corrode or become obsolete and tyrants die, there is one thing that never loses its power and never grows old. It is the word.

The supreme importance of two things is shown by their existence in God’s realm before He created the universe and all therein including man: the word and love. How is this possible? It is possible because God was the word and God is love. We know this from John’s gospel. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He (Jesus) was in the beginning with God…” [John 1:1. RSV] We are told in 1 John 4:8 that, “…God is love.” In the Revelation to John we also see that God’s love for His special creation existed before creation itself, “And all mankind—whose names were not written down before the founding of the world in the slain Lamb’s book of life—worshipped the evil creature.” [Revelation 13:8, Living Bible] [emphasis added] God loved man before his creation. God did not need man’s love, but rather it was a will to love, an expression of the very character of God, to share the inner life of the Trinity.

Language is unique to mankind. To compare the screeches, grunting, and howls of various species to that of human language is to compare mere recognition of night from day to that of a watch of intricate precision which can measure time to an accuracy of a fraction of a second. Richard Weaver wrote of the power of the word.

[There is an]…ancient belief that a divine element is present in language. The feeling that to have power of language is to have control over things is deeply imbedded in the human mind. We see it in the way men gifted in speech are feared or admired; we see it in the potency ascribed to incantations, interdictions, and curses. We see it in the legal force given to oath or word.[1]

The author of the New Testament book of James called the tongue a small member of the body but which boasts great power. He compares it to a small fire that can set ablaze a great forest. James also speaks of the difficulty of taming the tongue and the great harm it can cause. “For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by humankind, but no human being can tame the tongue—a restless evil, full of deadly poison.” [James 3:5, 7-8. RSV]

In the first chapter of Genesis we see that God spoke into existence the universe, the earth, and all therein, and a divine order was stamped on creation. Man was God’s special creation and given dominion over the earth and the power of the word to name every creature. But man rebelled against God’s order and was separated from a right relation with Him. Disorder now ruled man’s life.

As Weaver has said, speech is a divine element for humans were made in the image of God. But man is a fallen creature, and the poet Ralph Waldo Emerson sums up the consequences, “The corruption of man is followed by the corruption of language.”[2] In His revelation, God instructed man on how he ought to live life and included the right use of the word. Such was the importance of the word to God, His instruction to man as to the proper use of the word required two of the Ten Commandments, “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain…You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” [Exodus 20: 7, 16. RSV]

For all of man’s time on earth language has been the means of achieving order in culture. But in this modern age humanists have effectively used semantics to neuter words of their meaning in historical and symbolic contexts, that is, words now mean what men want them to mean.[3]

We live in a world of increasing disorder sustained and propelled by the perversion of language in which the meaning of words and ideas are separated from truth. Weaver recognized the folly of such perversion, “…here begins that relativism which by now is visibly affecting those institutions which depend for their very existence upon our ability to use language as a permanent binder.”[4] Words freed from the anchor of truth (reality) disorient and provide no clarity or direction regarding fixed, eternal values necessary for order that mankind craves and requires for living life.

The ordering and sustaining power of truthful words reverberates through history. Whether our words are a weapon of evil or an instrument of good is a matter of choice, and three thousand years ago Solomon identified the importance of that choice when he said there is power of life and death in the tongue. We must choose life, and life is found in biblical truths revealed to the ancient Hebrews and first century Christians.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences, (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1948), p. 148.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid., pp. 148, 151.
[4] George M. Curtis, III and James J. Thompson, Jr., eds., The Southern Essays of Richard M. Weaver, (Indianapolis, Indiana: Liberty Fund, 1997), p. 196-197.

The end of sustainable government

Posted by :admin On : August 15, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Constitution, God's Law v. Man's Law, Government

America has been a wildly successful country because of its sustainable government, and we can thank our founders for making that possible. However, the Obama presidency has done more to damage that sustainability than any administration in the nation’s history.

All governments are systems of ruling or controlling, and every system of government has a source of power. Every government’s source of power may be visualized as being at some point on a continuum of power. At one end of the continuum is anarchy at which there is no law, no order, and no systematic control and quickly slides into some form of tyranny. Tyranny resides at the other end of the continuum and imposes too much control and results in loss of freedom, oppression, and eventual slavery. Under the one system there is no law; under the other is the ruler’s law. What the Founders’ desired was a people’s law with “…enough government to maintain security, justice, and good order, but not enough government to abuse the people.”[1]

People’s law resides at the center of the continuum between anarchy and ruler’s law. How is this achieved? The Founders began their task with an understanding of the tendency of governments and cultures throughout history to swing from one extreme (tyranny) to the other (anarchy) and back. The Founders also recognized the difficulties of sustaining a government based on the people’s law because of the inherently corrupt nature of mankind.

In creating a government that was sustainable, the Founders recognized the inherent fallibility of any system of government based solely on law designed and guided by corrupt human nature that ultimately devolves into a succession of governments of tyrants or roiling mobs. To address the tendency of governments to fluctuate between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy, the Founders formed a government based on constitutionalism. A constitution designed by the people to reflect the people’s law marks the boundaries or limits of power delegated to the rulers of government. Because the Founders recognized the truth of the fallen nature of man, the American Constitution included a system of checks and balances known as the separation of powers.

By the late nineteenth century the tentacles of humanism would spread into American jurisprudence and began to undermine the biblical foundations of the law that had been laid by the Founders and threatened the restraining force of the Constitution. The new theory of law was based on relativism and introduced by Harvard Law School Dean Christopher Langdell in the 1870s. The major tenets of the progressivists’ theory of law are:

There are no objective, God-given standards of law, or if there are, they are irrelevant to the modern legal system.

Since God is not the author of law, the author of law must be man; in other words, the law is law simply because the highest human authority, the state, has said it is law and is able to back it up.

Since man and society evolve, therefore law must evolve as well.

Judges, through their decisions, guide the evolution of law.

To study law, get the original sources of law – the decision of judges.[2]

In his incisive indictment of progressivism in American jurisprudence, Bradley C. S. Watson states that “…such jurisprudence is destined to be destructive to any and all claims of moral truth…not only hostile to the liberal constitutionalism of the American Founders, but to any moral-political philosophy that allows for the possibility of a truth that is not time-bound.”[3]

Watson believes that there are two fundamental facts that mark the founding of America and subsequently the design of the Constitution. One was creedal and one was cultural. First, the Founders had a creedal “…understanding of natural rights, which were held not to be culturally derived or time-bound or subject to infinite incremental growth, but applicable to all men everywhere and final.” [emphasis added] In other words, there were eternal truths which transcended man and his time on this earth and were inviolable. Second, the Founders believed that American culture resulted from inherited or customary understandings that reflected the application or working out of the principles of timeless truths in daily life. The Founders’ creedal and the cultural beliefs were not in conflict but expressions of the same truth, and both rested firmly on the foundation of the Judeo-Christian faith and its eternal truths.[4] These two facts regarding the founding of America stand in stark contrast to progressivism’s faulty assumptions of the evolutionary nature of the Constitution and laws.

Because of the nature of the duties of the judiciary, Progressivists’ damage to the separation of powers under the Constitution has occurred primarily within that branch of government. But the brazen overreach of the Obama administration through disregard of Constitutional limits on executive powers may be unparalleled in American history. In addition to scorning the rebukes by the Supreme Court for his un-Constitutional executive actions, the President has violated his Constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws by selective enforcement and/or changes to laws enacted by Congress. Additionally, the administration has regularly circumvented the powers of the legislative branch through the issuance of illegitimate executive orders to accomplish what Congress would not approve.

Such is the seriousness and extent of the abuse of power of the executive branch that on July, 16, 2014, Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, appeared before the Committee on Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives to discuss litigation for actions by the President inconsistent with his duties under the Constitution. In his prepared remarks, Turley stated:

The President’s pledge to effectively govern alone is alarming but what is most alarming is his ability to fulfill that pledge. When a president can govern alone, he can become a government unto himself, which is precisely the danger that the Framers sought to avoid in the establishment of our tripartite system of government. In perhaps the saddest reflection of our divisive times, many of our citizens and Members are now embracing the very model of a dominant executive that the Framers fought to excise from our country almost 250 years ago.[5]

Sustainable government requires adherence to Constitutional limitations of power and the recognition of and adherence to timeless fixed moral and political truths from which there can be no departure. However, because of the ascendance of the humanistic worldview, there is an assault on these principles necessary to sustain government. In American jurisprudence this assault is a result of judicial activism that changes or creates laws or goes against precedent rather than just applying or interpreting laws. The more recent assault on the Constitution by the executive branch is evident in the maneuverings of a president seemingly bent on one-man rule based on man’s law disconnected from eternal truths.

As a result of these onslaughts, the hard-won people’s law of the Founders is endangered, and the end of our once sustainable American government is at hand. It is time for the states, Congress, and the American people to reign in the judicial and executive branches of government and return to the Constitutional balanced of powers as Madison and the delegates to the Constitutional Convention intended.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] W. Cleon Skousen, The 5000 Year Leap, (www.nccs.net: National Center for Constitutional Studies, 1981), pp. 10, 19.
[2] David Barton, Original Intent, 5th Edition, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuider Press, 2008), pp. 233-234.
[3] Bradley C. S. Watson, Living Constitution, Dying Faith, (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2009), p. xvi.
[4] Ibid., pp. 23-14.
[5] Jonathan Turley, “Authorization to Initiate Action for Litigation for Actions by the President Inconsistent with His Duties under the Constitution of the United States,” Committee on Rules, U.S. House of Representatives, July 16, 2014. http://docs.house.gov/meetings/RU/RU00/20140716/102507/HMTG-113-RU00-Wstate-TurleyJ-20140716.pdf (accessed August 11, 2014).