Christians who believe that only Caesar can educate

My latest article for Presidential Prayer team was a report on the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of Arizona's scholarship tax credit provision.  I have made it a personal policy never to respond the reader comments, which often amaze and perplex me.   SInce I am going to remain consistent to that commitment, and because I realize that Dove Mountaineers may sometimes be assaulted with similar thinking in their conversations, let me respond here to some of the readers' comments on this article.

1.   Lars J, Suzie, and CK, have confused tax credits with voucher programs, and worry about government control which would damage the mission of Christian schools.   I have had this concern as well, in the past, but the wise legislators (including several well-known Christian men) who crafted the Arizona tax credit law intentionally distanced the government's involvement so as to avoid such compromises.  In its fourteen year history, there is no evidence to support the notion that students receiving these scholarhsip from private agencies have compromised the mission or effectiveness of any Christian school.  The Supreme Court decision assures us that the program will continue to be administered in much the same way it has been in the past.  People who are worried about this should come to Arizona, visit our Christian schools, and point out where we have been controlled by the state.

2.  Liz Jones sees the increasing secularization of our society, but opposes anything (Christians withdrawing into "holy huddles," any form of voucher or tax credit, Christians in politics, etc.) but "personal evangelism" as a response.   The problem with this position is the assumption that evangelism alone will stop "secularization," if someone isn't teaching the next generation how to "think" about psychology, sociology, economics, government, and the lessons of history from a Christian worldview.  The public schools make truth claims in these areas.  Oprah and the nightly news all have positions on these topics.  Education cannot redeem, but the redeemed must be educated.

3.  Kathy worries about poor and emotionally disadvantaged children in public schools who are likely to remain "outside" the benefits of school choice.  I have never understood this argument.  In the first place, who can accurately safeguard the future of every living child?   Kathy explains that as a public school teacher, she teaches manners and making wise choices.  While I don't doubt that she may be the brightest hope in many of these children's lives, is it a "given" that no one would do this without government control?  Eventually the "wise choice" argument breaks down when these same children become victims of peer pressure in middle school, and "social survival" (often in the form of gangs) seems a "wiser" choice than obeying the law.  She cannot give them eternal reasons for doing the right thing, and eventually children figure that out.  But Kathy opposes vouchers and school choice for everyone, reasoning that no parent should be able to act on his or her own child's behalf, as long as irresponsible adults are bringing children into the world who may be neglected.  I don't get it.

Over and over it comes down to:  who has the greater claim on lives:  Caesar or God?

Continuing the conversation from WorldMovers on the Chick-Fil-A incident

Proposition A:   marriage is the union of male and female.....only.

Proposition B:  marriage is the union of male and female OR male and male OR female and female.

Can both propositions be true at the same time?

No.

If Propostion A represents the law of the land, then two of the three possible unions mentioned in Proposition B are disallowed....as legal marriage.

If Proposition B is the law of the land, it effectively nullifies Proposition A (because of the "only" part). While one my argue (and plenty do) that Proposition B generously allows (still) for the marriage of male and female, that is not the same as saying the Proposition A is still true.  It is no longer true when Proposition B is allowed to be the law of the land. Proposition B subverts the meaning of marriage in the eyes of those who believe Proposition A to be true.

If God says Proposition A is true, and Caesar says Proposition B is true, who has greater authority when Proposition B becomes the law of the land?  While many Christians lived, and even flourished, under the thumb of Caesar, it is also true that many died for their faith. Caesar was shrewd enough to realize that he could not be the final authority in a true Christian's life.    

When a Christian says something is true according to the Bible, then it is true everywhere and at all times.  The Christian who believes the Bible cannot say "This proposition is true for me because I have faith, but it is not true for you because you have no faith."  He can only say,"This Biblical proposition is true for all men at all times, whether they believe it to be true or not."

It has already reached the point in our nation where Caesar doesn't like it when people say things like that.

More evidence of "Dumbing down"

While working on a literature list for school, I wrote an article for the

parents on why I do not give summer reading credit for students who read Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew mysteries past age ten.                                                                                                                                                                                        

(That is not the subject of this blog, but if anyone is curious I could reprint the article here....if someone would let me know....if anyone is reading....and knows how to post a comment.)                  

                                                                                                                       My research about the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew led me to some reviews which reminded me that the current editions are not the same stories I read as a child.  Using the same titles, all the originals have been rewritten to make them more "culturally sensitive."  I was already aware of this, but assumed it meant innocuous things like replacing roadsters with convertibles and elimnating neckties from the boys' everyday wardrobes.  Comments by several reviewers revealed a wider set of changes.  In brief, the criticisms were:   (1)   the new books are dumbed down (length and vocabulary); (2)  the new books concerntrate on political correctness;  (3) the new books lack depth of character and complexity.   

One reviewer went so far as to say he had saved a complete collection of the Hardy Boys' old versions and had them under lock and key in his home (as though they were the last remaining copies and someone would try to destroy them!).  Another reviewer commented the she was glad she realized they had been rewritten before purchasing the first three volumes for her grandchild.  She went online and found reprints of the originals.  Her closing comment was "They get enough political correctness in their life as it is."                                                              I am writing about this, not because I think the originals of these two series were that wonderful (they were not great writing) or because I think every child should (or should not) read either the originals or the revisions.  My point is that publishers, parents, and "popular wisdom" think that present day children should read shorter books with simpler vocabulary and values different from those of their grandparents....because why? I hope someone is asking these questions before we have produced a generation that can't read, can't understand words of more than two syllables, has no knowledge of the past, and assumes that all old ideas are "wrong."   

If you are a parent, grandparent, or a teacher, I hope you will consider this trend, and then put some "dangerous" books in a child's hands today!  Start with the Bible!      

Bin-Laden revisited: best comment yet

"In moments such as this, secularism leaves us bereft of any appropriate response. If there is no God above us, who trains our Seals for battle (Ps. 144:1), then we are left with two options, both of them bad. We are left without an appropriate vocabulary for our victories. Either we get a glorying in American military prowess, of the chest bumping variety, which is just obnoxious -- what Obama called spiking the football -- or we mistreat our warriors the way David did after the defeat of Absalom. But the only real alternative is to give glory to God. But that turns it into a religious war, and the secularists can't have that. So we are left with hubristic Americanism, or skulking home after the triumph. Gakk."           Douglas Wilson     (read the article here)

A hymn to the "High King of Heaven"

One of our hymns today is "Be Thou My Vision," which is sung to the traditional tune Slane, of Ir­ish folk or­i­gin. Slane Hill is about ten miles from Ta­ra in Coun­ty Meath. It was on Slane Hill around 433 AD that St. Pat­rick de­fied a roy­al edict by light­ing can­dles on East­er Eve. High King Lo­gaire of Ta­ra had de­creed that no one could light a fire be­fore Lo­gaire be­gan the pa­gan spring fes­ti­val by light­ing a fire on Ta­ra Hill. Lo­gaire was so im­pressed by Pat­rick’s de­vo­tion that, de­spite his de­fi­ance (or per­haps be­cause of it­), he let him con­tin­ue his mis­sion­ary work. The rest is his­to­ry.

Reminder for WorldMovers

Just a reminder to World Movers that we will still be in this issue (pictured at right) for one more Sunday (tomorrow).  Having discussed the cover article last Sunday, it's wide open for any article people want to talk about.  I will bring additional follow up material on the Biblical economics principles I introduced last week. We will probably want to discuss the article about Chick-Fil-A in this regard.   

Honor where honor is due

Today I honor David Schexnayder (who honors his French ancestry) who single-handedly argued off a table of six skeptics regarding French military ineptitude at Wednesday's New Barleymen Choir Practice. 

David "schooled" us in the accomplishments of the French in erecting the Maginot Line (an aspect of WWII I had not concentrated on since my dad was in the Italian Campaign).  He then pointed out that it was actually the Belgians (see "weak fortifications" above) who let the German army into France, an event which spawned the noble efforts of the French Resistance (which he also extolled before us).  Touche, David.  Vive la France!

Christians in the Workplace

D. Michael Lindsay, a sociologist at Rice University, recently completed a study of Christian leaders in the workplace, focusing on what role religion plays in busines decisions-making, particularly the motives which drive those decisions.  His conclusion is that leaders fall into four general categories regarding the role their faith place in their business life:  pragmatic, heroic, circumspect, and brazen. 

The "pragmatic" leader, exemplified by PepsiCo executive Steve Reinemund, defines himself as evangelical, but admits that he doesn't have all the answers.  Self-reflection by such a leader reveals that his decision-making is largely pragmatic;  they end up hoping they have made the right decisions.  Sometimes, Lindsay notes, they feel they are choosing between "the lesser of two evils - or the better of two goods."

Lindsay's "heroic" evangelical believes his or her faith is not "checked at the door," but rather drives the moral philosophies by which decisions are made.  He notes Sherron Watkins, the Enron wihistleblower, as an example of such a leader - one who would "do the right thing," even if it costs her her job or eventually brings down the company.

A "circumspect" leader is one who is "deeply religious, but isn't outward about it."   Like John Aden, a senior vice-president at Walmart International, such a leader is generally attracted to a workplace where the company's values resonate with faith convictions the leader already embraces.  While not always vocal about their faith, such men and women do peform their duties and make personal decisions that are based on faith convictions.  

An example of a "brazen" leader would be former Arizona Cardinals' quarterback and NFL Most Valuable Player Kurt Warner, says Lindsay.  These are the ones who are most unabashed about their faith alignment, and feel that their religion and jobs go hand in hand.  For these Christians, anything less than complete openness about their faith would be a matter of "being ashamed of the gospel."

Linday's conclusion is that "there is a lot more Christian commitment in the corner office than people think...it is entirely possible to be faithful and yet sensitive to the context of where God has placed you."

I find ths study encouraging, and its implications for our lives as Dove Mountaineers in the working community of Tucson are multifold.  I pray that we will be self-reflective about the impact we are making for Christ, regardless of which of the four categories we may most comfortably fall into.

Like drowning kittens....

I have used this space to promote Chuck Colson's daily Breakpoint articles a few times before.  I do so once again because today's article is timely and well-said.  It also happens to agree with my biases, so he must be a pretty smart fellow. 

Here's a teaser from what he said today:

"The conservative position is that advocating tax hikes, even to reduce the deficit, is the moral equivalent of advocating the drowning of kittens. Like the liberal position, it is also popular among the American people, who only favor tax hikes on 'the rich.' And by 'the rich,' they mean 'anybody other than me.'"

And another:

"And as Christians, we have to ask examine our own motivations -- are we dancing to an ideological tune, or are we relying on revealed truth to show us the way out of this mess?"

You can read the whole article here.

If you like it, consider becoming a daily e mail subscriber, as I am.  Good stuff!

Champions need the Spirit of the Lord

As he approached Lehi, the Philistines came toward him shouting. The Spirit of the LORD came upon him in power. The ropes on his arms became like charred flax, and the bindings dropped from his hands. Finding a fresh jawbone of a donkey, he grabbed it and struck down a thousand men. Then Samson said, “With a donkey’s jawbone I have made donkeys of them.With a donkey’s jawbone
I have killed a thousand men.”
Judges 15:14-16

And Samson called unto the LORD, and said, O Lord God, remember me, I pray thee, and strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once, O God, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes.
Judges 16:28

And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions.
Hebrews 11:32-33

Thank you, Mike Jones, for this messsage.

Bin-Laden: "The end of something"

Do not gloat when your enemy falls;

when they stumble, do not let your heart rejoice,

or the LORD will see and disapprove

and turn his wrath away from them.
 

Proverbs 24:17-18

 

Thanks to Dave Dent and Todd Vandenbranden for this reminder.

Caring for the proper things

I assume many Dovemountaineers have been following, as has my family, the media coverage of the royal wedding. I like what radio commentator Dennis Prager had to say on Friday:  "This was a celebration of all that is excellent in human achievement."  He also commended the fact that the wedding was decidedly non-secularist in the worldview and cultural impact that it had.

I later found the paragraphs below by a blogger identified simply as "hogan."   His reflections are worth paying attention to:

"But whatever one thinks of the Monarchy, in an increasingly pathetic MTV world - the ceremony today was extraordinary, and a good thing for the world to see. It was nothing short of impressive - timely, carried out with precision, dripping with military, Christian and royal traditions. The music was magnificent - there were actual hymns rather than gaudy “praise music” rock bands, a church that looks like a church, and the participants and guests were dressed not just appropriately, but perfectly… The procession was extraordinary, with hand-sewn uniforms and white and black horses leading the carriages - the Union Jack lining the streets.

The event was broadcast to an estimated 2 billion people. And in my view - that is a good thing. It can hardly be bad - for whatever flaws of the people involved - to remind people through the broadcast of a high religious ceremony that Christ is Lord. It can hardly be bad to have 2 billion people hear a Christian reminder of the importance of marriage in furthering mankind. It can hardly be bad to remind people that for all its flaws, the Anglo-influence has indeed made the world a far better place. And it is hardly bad to remind people that tradition matters - that carrying ourselves the proper way matters."

And I say, "Amen."