→ Hey, I Know Those Kids

We were blessed to be able to watch the Draper kids for a few hours yesterday. Are they cute, or what?! I love ‘em, but they’re growing up way too fast!

Click through for Pictures.

→ Anti-Komen Backlash is Disgusting

This is pretty good. You should go read the whole thing, but here are my favorite parts:

If either of the two should be wary of politicizing its decision-making process, it should be PP, no? And yet Komen is getting hammered for a practical organizational decision (for the zillionth time: PP does not provide mammography) while pro-choice auxiliaries are gleefully fomenting the rage.

…

Imagine I volunteered to run a cub scout troop, and for years, when the annual soapbox derby came near, I knew I could count on Joe’s Deli as good for a hundred dollar donation. If one year Old Man Joe decided he didn’t want to donate any more — because he didn’t like the design of our racer, or because he thought his hundred bucks was better spent on a little league team, or because he disapproved of the scouts’ stance on gays — what on earth would justify me going on public access TV to grill Old Man Joe on why he hates kids? What would justify me hacking the Joe’s Deli web site or maliciously editing Old Man Joe’s Wikipedia page? What would justify me goading a handful of my city councilman into standing up at the next town meeting and publicly calling on Old Man Joe to reinstate his donation?

Nothing. Nothing would justify that. Nothing at all.

→ She’s still campaigning for SOPA

I’ll be joining Ralph Bristol on Supertalk 99.7 WTN at 6:35am Central Time to talk about the need to stop foreign-based online piracy.

I was saddened to see Marsha Blackburn is still campaigning for SOPA. This is of course the big day of protest. And Marsha chooses to continue campaigning for this reprehensible legislation.

I am reminded of what Mark Twain said:

Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.

I think Marsha Blackburn is at that point…

→ Jeffress wrong on Ron Paul and John Jay

Robert Jeffress was correct when called Momonism a cult, but he could not be more misguided in some of his latest comments.

I a piece run by Fox News, influential pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, TX, is telling evangelicals to be patient in the GOP primaries—not terrible advice in itself. His general reason is admirable: that we should not “abandon principles for pragmatism.” Indeed. But his applications and interpretations of that reason for Iowa and New Hampshire border on libel.

I don’t think that I was under the delusion that someone with the eschatological views that Jeffress holds would endorse Ron Paul, but I’m linking just in case any else did.

Jeffress blithely talks about Dr. Paul’s neo-Nazi ties, which is getting a bit old, and has frankly been debunked already.

→ Voddie Baucham - Why Ron Paul?

Dr. Paul does not beat his Christian faith like a drum in his public/political life. Unfortunately, that is off-putting for the “Christian Right”. However, in a world full of ‘posturing’ in an effort to win over evangelicals, I find Paul’s public demeanor refreshing. And it is not as though he is a ‘closet Christian,’ either. “I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate,” wrote Paul on his Web site.[5] I have also had the privilege of talking with both him, and one of his five children about his faith and how it influences his policy positions.

Voddie Baucham’s article shows that I can get along with Baptists, and very much so. I don’t think there is a single thing in the linked article I disagree with. Please go read it all, but here are some other highlights:

Not only is Ron Paul a Christian Conservative; he is also a Constitutional Conservative. He holds himself accountable to the Constitution of the United States, even when it means he has to vote against legislation that may be otherwise beneficial. This has cost him on numerous occasions as people use the “Ron Paul voted against so-and-so” tactic to paint a caricature of him and play “gotcha” politics.

…

I support Ron Paul because he is a military veteran (yup… he refuses to beat that drum too, which is why you may not have known that little tidbit). And though I do not believe it is necessary for a man to have served in the military for him to serve as President, the fact that Congressman Paul knows and hates war lends credibility to his desire and commitment to ending the wars and bringing our troops home. Moreover, he has a constitutional understanding of war (only Congress can send us to war), and a Christian commitment to historic Just War Theory (rooted in the Sixth Commandment… HIS WORDS).

…

I support Ron Paul because he has a constitutional view of foreign policy. Ironically, our foreign policy has been so unconstitutional for so long that many people recoil at the idea of getting it back in line. Moreover, the semantic game Paul’s opponents play (using “isolationism” as opposed to “non-intervention” to define his position) doesn’t help. For most Christians, this is where they believe I’ve left the reservation. They may not say, “We have to be the world’s police force,” but I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard, “Do you know his position on Israel?” “Surely you can’t support a man who doesn’t support Israel!”

Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Ron Paul does support Israel. It is our current foreign policy that does not support Israel! However, there is a deeper issue here. There is a sort of misplaced Dispensationalism that governs people’s sentimental attitude toward Israel. Let me state clearly that I do not believe the Bible demands that the U.S. support Israel. I do, however, believe that it is wise to do so for geopolitical reasons. To do so for theological reasons, I believe, is actually misguided, and quite dangerous. Nevertheless, Israel is our only true ally in the Middle East, and that is important.

Right on!

Finally, I support Dr. Paul because he has been a consistent conservative. He has been married to the same woman for more than fifty years; delivered over 4,000 babies as an OB; never performed a single abortion; has never voted for an unbalanced budget, a tax increase, or a bailout; forecasted the economic debacle long before it happened;[13] and gave back $140,000 last year through his office to pay down the national debt (100,000 in 2010). This man is so principled that he refuses to claim his congressional pension!

Go read it all!

→ Santorum Voted to Subsidize Abortion, Planned Parenthood

GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum is under fire in South Carolina for touting his alleged pro-life beliefs but voting to subsidize abortion and Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in America, while serving in the U.S. Senate.

There’s a reason I don’t support Santorum.

Santorum then continued to defend his vote by claiming that the funding was used for birth control. However, because money is fungible, few serious analysts accept the implied argument that tax funds for Planned Parenthood are not used to subsidize abortion. They undoubtedly are.

…

“I am not for federal funding of that, but it’s in a big bill that provides a lot of things. Did I vote for that overall bill? Yes, I did.” He then resumed his attacks on Paul for not supporting enough federal spending.

The legislation in question was also used to fund several other federal departments not authorized by the Constitution including Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. But for many pro-life activists, voting for any bill that sends even a dime of tax money to an organization known to commit over 329,000 abortions every year is deal breaker — let alone voting to appropriate almost half of a billion dollars for the abortionist cause.

Put me in that camp.

Santorum also voted for the Democrat-sponsored “Freedom of Access to [Abortion] Clinic Entrances Act,” legislation purportedly making it a federal crime to “interfere” with a person seeking to terminate a pregnancy. As critics warned at the time, the bill has been used with increasing frequency to prosecute peaceful protesters. The former Senator vigorously campaigned for several rabidly pro-abortion candidates, too — even against their pro-life opponents.

Beyond abortion, Santorum’s voting record in the Senate also includes other evidence that the GOP hopeful is not quite as “conservative” as he would like voters to believe. For example, he supported unconstitutional gun control, the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, raising the debt ceiling, invading Iraq without a declaration of war, and expanding the unconstitutional Department of Education. He also backed indefinite detentions, torture, removing habeas corpus, and other legislation repugnant to American traditions and the Constitution.

That any Christian can support this man is unbelievable to me.

→ Why I Love (True) Religion Because I Love Jesus

I haven’t had enough abuse about this subject yet, so…

My previous article got a fair amount of traffic. By far the biggest source was Facebook. But this article was my second biggest source of traffic. He linked to me at the end of his article and so I’m returning the favor. At first I was hesitant because it took me a bit to find his name ¹ , but then I realized it was in the sidebar by way of linking to his Facebook page, and his Google+ page. Also his about page lists the Church he pastors. He is Rev. Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick, pastor of an Orthodox Church in Emmaus, Pennsylvania. As such I offer the disclaimer that he holds to theology which I very much disagree with (and some comes out in his article). And this is especially important for me to point out now because that’s really what this issue is about, that theology is important, that words, are important. In a word, worldview: it’s very important.

The above video by Jefferson Bethke has been making the rounds lately via various bits of social media. A few people have sent it to me to ask what I think. This touches on a lot of themes that I’ve written on before, and while it doesn’t particularly make any new theological claims—it’s really just a sort of standard, monergistic, anti-ecclesial, sentimentalist Evangelical Protestantism—for whatever reason (perhaps the emotionally moving music in the background), it seems to be getting some attention.

See, almost right away the differences in our theology are apparent. If you didn’t catch it I’ll get to it in a bit. I did enjoy reading his article despite my disagreements with him because the general point he is making is the same as mine.

Here’s my favorite part:

But if Jesus came to your church, would they actually let Him in?

Well, since you asked about my church… He comes to my church every day, and He actually is present on my altar at least once a week, and we not only let Him into the church, but we let Him into our actual bodies.

As someone who believes and practices weekly communion this was great.

Also this:

Now back to the point, one thing is vital to mention, how Jesus and religion are on opposite spectrums. See one’s the work of God, but one’s a man made invention, see one is the cure, but the other’s the infection.

Actually, I thought sin was the infection. When Adam and Eve infected the whole human race with what they did, was their error the founding of “religion”? I seem to have missed that part.

But I do have to do the rest of my disclaimer here since I am linking to this. I have done my due diligence in reading it though and thoroughly and I don’t want there to be any confusion. Theologically I am a Reformed Presbyterian, and obviously Calvinist. Fr. Damick is obviously not. So just to clarify:

Which means I don’t have to hide my failure, I don’t have to hide my sin. Because it doesn’t depend on me, it depends on Him.

Actually, it depends on you, too. If you don’t cooperate, then it won’t do anything for you at all.

Sorry my brother, we aren’t going to get along here. It’s one of the few things I really didn’t have a quibble with in the video. If salvation requires us to cooperate then it is not salvation by grace, it is salvation by works. Again, I’m not surprised since he is a pastor in the Orthodox Church, I’m just pointing it out.

Religion is man searching for God. Christianity is God searching for man, which is why salvation is freely mine, and forgiveness is my own, not based on my merits, but Jesus’s obedience alone.

“Religion” is a lot of different things. I agree that it is God Who has come to reconnect (religio) with man, but He also created man to have a longing for God. What you’re revealing here actually has a technical theological name, and it’s the heresy of monergism, the idea that the whole of salvation is exclusively the act of God. You’re right that salvation isn’t based on your merits, but you’re wrong that Christianity isn’t about man searching for God. It’s both about God Who has come to be with man (“searching” seems to suggest that He doesn’t know where man is) and about man’s response to his desire for the divine.

When did monergism become heresy? I suppose the Orthodox Church may have declared it that and I didn’t know about it. I’m not well studied on all of the Orthodox Chruch’s positions. But so far as I understand Monergism, it is exactly the opposite of heresy, it’s correct and sound theology.

But I do agree with that last part, it was the exact thoughts I had at that part of the poem/song. God searching for man? Did he not know where we were?

→ Jon Stewart Gets it Right

This is funny, and right on. But you know it’s pretty sad when a liberal comedian gets it way more right than most “conservatives”.

→ Neoconservatism

Neoconservatism is a variant of the political ideology of conservatism which rejects the utopianism and egalitarianism of modern liberalism but sees a role for the welfare state. Their main emphasis since 1990 has been using American power to foster democracy abroad, especially in the Middle East. They were notably visible in Republican administrations of George H.W. Bush (1989-93) and George W. Bush (2001-2009).

I don’t have time to read that whole thing right now, but that first paragraph sounds just about right.

So, in case I need to spell it out for you: Neoconservatism = VERY BAD!

→ Nathaniel Darnell Responds to Michael Farris

So it’s with grief that I am compelled to humbly but firmly publicly address your recent post publicly criticizing Congressman Paul’s positions on the 10th and 14th Amendment. Your post asserted that without SCOTUS’s faulty 14th Amendment jurisprudence—one that has opened the door to abortion and sodomy and a host of other evils—we would not have the right to homeschool. This is simply not true.

Nathaniel Darnell’s response to Michael Farris. Nathaniel has a law degree, and he knows what he’s talking about.