So, please change all your link for my blog or your favorite or whatever. You can find it here: Treading Out Grain.

I have often addressed these very issues in my own pastoral ministry. As one of my seminary professors stated, “Gnosticism is alive and well in the Church today.” We do need much more of a focus on the resurrection and our eternal purpose that we find in Christ through his resurrection rather than an attempt to escape the world the way Gnostics do. To quote the Apostles’ Creed, “I believe…in the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting, Amen.”

This is a very sad report of such circumstances in our world today. There was a time when Christians were at the forefront of rescuing such unwanted children born in their communities. In Roman society, such unwanted children were “exposed” (i.e., to the elements) by being left out in the gutters of the streets or dumped in the garbage heaps of the cities. This invariably would lead to the child’s death by exposure to the elements or by dehidration/starvation. Christians would go around, collect these children, and adopt them into their homes and churches, teaching them to trust in Christ and live different lives in response to God’s grace offered in the Lord Jesus. It is interesting that this kindness shown to small children was turned into false accusation of cannibalism by non-Christians. Many of the very people who would so heartlessly throw unwanted children out into the streets or landfills would then turn around and audaciously accuse Christians, who sought to rescue those children, of eating the children, because the Pagans conflated what few things that they knew about Christian worship and practice (i.e., the story of the Nativity of Christ [this child, whom Christians regard as their Savior, born into a feeding trough], the celebration of the Eucharist of Christ [Christ having given his body to eat and his blood to drink], and Christians taking these abandoned children into their homes).

I read an article recently about strange names that some saints in the early Church had received. Some of the stranger ones were rather vulgar names that apparently were monuments to their having been plucked up from sure death after being cast out as unwanted children. I remember one in particular was a diminutive version a very expressive word in Greek, politely translated into English as “Little Piece of Garbage,” but more expressively and bluntly translated “Little Shit.” No doubt, his testimony was that, as an infant, he was cast out with the trash but rescued by Christians and adopted into their homes. For whatever reason, they either gave themselves these disparaging names or received them from their adoptive parents, most probably with a view to being a perpetual reminder of where they came from, always knowing that whatever would come of their lives would be always owing to God’s grace and power so evidently at work.

Unfortunately, in the modern day, the horrendous act of abortion is hidden from the sensitive eyes of the public, keeping them from seeing exactly what they are perpetuating in their advocacy for a mother’s “choice” to murder her unborn child. And even worse, it prevents Christians from being able to do what they were so quick and anxious to do in earlier times: to help save these unwanted children who are born to unloving and uncaring parents—many of which, today, are born alive and viable in botched abortion attempts. It is astounding that “civilized” and “enlightened” societies such as ours doesn’t do more to ensure that where life is it would be preserved at all costs.

Even as i thank the Lord for my life, and the lives of all my children (both natural and spiritual), and so recognize the love and grace that we all have received from God through the agency of our families and the Church, i pray that God would remove the monstrosity of infanticide (both within the womb and without) from our world forever.

I can no longer embed video here (i don’t know why, but it is what it is), so check this out at YouTube. It is a hearing probing the issue of voting machines being hacked and changing the results of elections.

Understand, for the last two years now, i’ve been working at our local election precinct as a poll worker. I saw what went on with the counting. It’s a group effort with accountability to everyone standing around, and it is something you all have to sign your name to under penalty of law (i.e., if you sign your name to the results and they are incorrect, it is voter fraud). So, in the human aspect of it, i know that changing the results of an election done on computerized voting machines is something that would be difficult to do without some larger conspriacy. All you do is print out the results, tabulate all the machines’ printouts, and then record the results and report them to the county election officials, who in turn report them to the Secretary of the Commonwealth (Virginia isn’t a state).

This hearing and the expert who is testifying, however, shows me that the election can be thrown already, long before we turn the voting machines on, simply by a programmer changing a few dozen lines of programming code. That means that the programmer can make the election results end up being whatever he wants them to be, regardless of who casts a vote for what candidate. The results will be fixed.

Understand, i don’t think this happens often. Each county election board purchases and maintains their own machines, so any attempt to throw an election would necessarily involve a programmer for each county rigging the machines to give such a result. However, i am not so naive as to believe that this never happens and never has happened since the implementation of the computerized voting following the Flordia fiasco in 2000. There are, no doubt, only a handful of programmers for each state or commonwealth who go around to each county and program their machines for voting in each election. It would not be difficult for just a few programmers throughout the US to throw an entire election if they were dirty and crooked enough to do so, and it would not surprise me in the least if the elected officials were the ones secretly behind such actions, inciting certain people to do just that with the programming.

My grandfather used to say, “If a man is honest, keep him honest.” In other words, honest people don’t mind being made accountable and showing just how honest they are. And, hence, we should be willing to require that accountability from people who loudly proclaim their honesty. The civil authorities should, of all people, be kept honest. Our governments shouldn’t be shrouded in secrecy—certainly not with something so vital and momentous as an election in the balance—but should be free, open, and transparent in their actions, always being willing to prove to the people that what they have done is proper, decent, and comporting with law. Unfortunately, that isn’t happening in our federal government, and that is also increasingly the case in the state/commonwealth and local governments. That’s becasue political corruption is like biological corruption: it spreads with ferocious speed when left unchecked. The only answer, just as in the medical world, is to open the body, excise the corruption, and allow the wound to heal.

People die when they refuse to allow a surgeon to operate on them and remove cancer or gangrene, but there are some people who so because they are afraid of surgery or the pain that will result from it. They are fools, though, because the pain of death and the rotting of one’s body is much worse and more prolonged than the pain of removing a cancer or gangrenous tissue. Just as only a fool would prevent a surgeon from saving his life by performing surgery because it is painful, so only a fool would prevent the removal of political corruption from the government because he thinks it will cause us confusion, or the government won’t work as well, or simply because they’re so used to the status quo that they can’t conceive of it being any different. Those are childish answers from childish people. They deserve the leaders that they get.

But how do we get rid of government corruption? In a dictatorship, you can’t do it. However, where the people still have the power to change the leadership of their government through elections, removing government corruption is as easy as people getting off the cushion God gave them and going to vote for a candidate who will begin that change. But it’s impossible to do if the people, like mindless sheep, simply follow the crowd and believe what they are told when the media says this man is not electable, but this one is. If all the people would vote their consciences and not worry about trying to play political games, our elections would be much more trustworthy and a much better representation of the people.

It will be painful to try and get used to a different way that government operates. However, we can take heart that the future we will have gained for ourselves and for our children after us will be brighter and healthier than if we had been content with the sops of a corrupt government. We have to decide whether we prefer having our freedom or whether we prefer having what little bones and scraps that the government will throw our way in hopes that they have bought us off with them. We must not be like Esau, who sold his very birthright for a pot of stew. We must be willing to stand, fight, and die for the freedom and gifts that God in his great mercy and love gave to us for our benefit. We must do it for ourselves, and we must do it for our children. Anything less and we become conspirators ourselves. It is one thing to be deceived. It is quite another to cover your eyes to what can be plainly seen and allow ourselves to be deceived. People who do that become conspirators in their demise as a people. The judgment that will befall the corrupt politicians will also fall upon those who knowingly aid them simply to gain some temporary and inconsequential goal.

The problem with this poster is that it seems to assume that America got “lost” after 9/11. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The simple fact is that you don’t see government encroachment in leaps and bounds, but in inches and creeps.

This government intrusion that we see today is the product of decades of usurpation of the federal government of the people’s and the states’ rights (cf., the Tenth Amendment). Going back to the federal government we had in 2000 or 1990 won’t cut it. We need to go back to the federal government we had in 1789. We need to restore the Republic to what the Constitution actually says. Nothing else will do us any good.

I don’t always, but in many ways, i do agree with his analysis of the service in question, and i also agree with him about Presbyterians trying to chant like they’re Anglicans. The fact is that Presbyterians are Presbyterians for more reasons than their Church government. We have a particular way of worshipping, and we have an inherent distaste for categorically imposed forms of worship. Not every Presbyterian has a problem with the way the Book of Common Prayer is set up and/or worded (i, for instance, am perfectly comfortable with it), but there are Presbyterian ministers (or laymen) whose consciences are bothered by doing certain things that the Prayer Book prescribes.

One thing i found funny about the post, though, was Johnson’s seeming self-refutation. In the first part of the post, he argued for the Prayer Book, and he argued against innovations on it (changing wording of the collects, for instance) because it was just better to have that tradition behind it. But then, at the end of the post, he argued for the validity of the Reformed practice of singing metrical psalms rather than chant verbatim psalms based on the argumet that it was their tradition, that they are not used to chanting, and that, because it is unfamiliar, they will not do it all that well (all true in my experience). That seemed to me to refute the point he had made previously about how the Prayer Book was just better and that there shouldn’t be any innovation on its tradition. If that’s true for the Prayer Book, why isn’t it true for psalm chanting as well? Could it be that Johnson is doing precisely what he derides, and making those kind of liturgical decisions based on his own preferences and predilictons? If not, how does he justify the difference between saying that, if one likes some things in the Prayer Book, he should follow it verbatim or not at all, and saying that one has freedom to follow the Reformed tradition of metrical rather than verbatim (chant) psalm singing? After all, the Reformed practice of questioning tradition and seeking to improve upon it is itself a Reformed tradition. In that regard, when they do that, they’re still just following the Reformed tradition.

The truth is that Presbyterian worship is Presbyterian worship, whether you’re talking about the prayers you pray or the songs you sing. Reformed and Presbyterians have a strong tradition in both regards (which includes set forms within congregations, but that are not universal; being, rather, recommended forms for worship). I don’t think anyone would say Jim Jordan isn’t a quirky Presbyterian, but he’s still fleshing out being a High Church Presbyterian, and that’s something that all Presbyterians are going to have to get used to again since the Puritan minimalists are loosing their long-held domination in the Presbyterian and Reformed world.

Question for you Ronites: OK, I get it. You love everything about his stands on every important issue facing our nation. But looking at Mr. Paul as a person - his record in Congress, executive experience if any, ability to work profitably and honorably in the great compromise that is Washington politics, and so forth - what makes you think he can govern?

If by some crazy chance he wins his first primary at some point, and then another, and another, resulting in both hell freezing over and the GOP nomination, and then goes on to best Billary or B. Hussein … after all the I-told-you-so’s from his true believers, I still see an ineffective President. A guy with Perfect Points of View on Every Problem, but who in the face of congressional opposition doesn’t get a thing done toward any of his laudable goals.

The following response, along with another response from a fellow Ron Paul supporter, is in the comments section, but i figured it would make sense to make it its own post. Here is in a nutshell my reason for supporting Ron Paul’s candidacy for presidency.

The point is that you can’t do anything about the poor state of our government if all you want to do is tweak the government as it is (which is seriously screwed up, and tweaking ain’t gonna cut it). The problem with the government is that people are treating it like an absolute government instead of the limited government that it is supposed to be. What’s the difference? The Constitution of the US was written in such a way that the federal government is limited to doing *ONLY* that which is explicitly stated in the Constitution and its amendments (cf., Tenth Amendment). However, our federal government thinks it can do anything that it takes a notion to do so long as it gets a majority in both houses of Congress and gets the president to sign it. Yet, there is still no constitutional warrant for the federal government doing lots of things, including, but not limited to, funding art (i.e., the National Endowment of the Arts), regulating education withinin the several states (i.e., the Department of Education and everything the Congress attempts to do about regulating education, especially “No Child Left Behind”), putting forward government insurance (i.e., Social Security and the property insurance for property owners in places that experience natural disasters), establishing a federal bank (i.e., the Federal Reserve), establishing federal police (i.e., the FBI), funding and subsidizing domestic businesses and foreign governments, and any other number of programs and activities the federal government engages in as a matter of course without any qualm. (Please note: i don’t have a problem with some of these things *IF* there were constitutional warrant, which is to say, 3/4 of the several states ratifying an amendment to the Constitution in order to authorize the federal government to engage in these things, but without constitutional warrant, they are illegal, even if they are almost universally accepted).

It takes someone who really understands and abides by the Constitution in order to bring us back to the point where our government really is “for the people and by the people.” And that just underscores the need for someone who isn’t a career politician to do the jobs in the Congress. It was through Parliamentary reform in England that there even *WAS* such a thing as a paid elected office. What that did was to give everyday, common men the ability to be elected to those offices, when they would have no means to support their families if they gave up their normal jobs to serve in Parliament. That same idea was carried over to our Congress and executive office. The point is that the people who make up the government *SHOULD* be ordinary citizens. Your assumption, though, is, for whatever reason, that the people who fill these offices should be career politicians? Why? Where does that assumption come from?

The truth is, you can’t do *ANYTHING* ultimately productive if you don’t have a proper foundation from which to operate. That’s true as much for our government as it is for the Church of our Lord Christ. People can have all kinds of ideas for lots of things to do, but if they do not comport with the standards in place (i.e., the Constitution), then they are useless ideas, illegal ideas, or, worse still, destructive ideas. So, Ron Paul’s candidacy may seem like a long-shot, but he’s the only person running in this race with the kind of principled leadership (and longstanding record) that can indeed lead us back to having a government based on the Constitution in truth, and not just in name.

At the same time, though, an “ineffective” president is a good thing–if you mean by “ineffective,” one who doesn’t get much done in terms of implementing new government programs and government spending. And, too, the reason many of us support Ron Paul is because he would have a very anxious veto pen (something our current president has no idea about). That veto pen would mean a curb on Congress’ spending and attempts to expand government–which is one of the reasons why Ron Paul is such an appealing candidate. Is he going to be able to return government to its proper limits in two or four years? Probably not. After all, it got the way it is over the course of 148 years now. You can’t undo in 4 what took 150 years to do. But, he will be a good start on the way back to our government being what it was originally intended to be if he is elected.

The final point is an important one. Ron Paul may not have, as my father said, a “Chinaman’s chance in Tokyo,” but my supporting him, giving money to his campaign and telling everyone i know about him is not so short-sighted as to end in February with no primary wins or even in September at the Republican Convention (because, even if Ron Paul only gets the handful of delegates he already has for his runner-up finishes, it is still possible for him to be the ultimate nominee; read about the 1880 Republican Convention and the way Garfield came to be the nominee); no, this is the beginning of a movement to see the government turned around. Ron Paul isn’t some sort of “Messiah”; he’s a servant of the people and a comrade to every other American who loves his country but is afraid of his government and wants to keep it in check. Ron Paul may not be the candidate to get elected, but he’s a pivotal figure in the overall, long-term fight to recapture what the federal government should be (not what it became after the War of Northern [i.e., “Federal”] Aggression, when the federal government actually believed its own propaganda to think it could do anything it wishes as long as they have the power to back it up).

I support Ron Paul *BECAUSE* i support the movement and the long-term goals we have as Paleo-Conservatives, not the other way around.

• Ron Paul doesn’t go to the gym; he stays fit by exercising his civil rights.
• When Ron Paul delivers babies, he doesn’t use his hands; he just reads them the Bill of Rights, and they crawl out in anticipation of freedom.
• Ron Paul doesn’t cut taxes; he kills them with his bare hands.
• Jesus wears a wrist-band that says “What Would Ron Paul Do?”
• Ron Paul is the leading proponent of gun control—both hands firmly on your weapon of choice.
• Ron Paul can fly, but he doesn’t, because it isn’t in the Constitution.
• King Midas once shook Ron Paul’s hand. Nothing happened.
• It turns out that Ron Paul let the dogs out; they were being held without due process.
• Before Rudy Giuliani goes to bed at night, he checks his closet and under his bed for Ron Paul.
• Ron Paul didn’t invent the internet; he invented electricity and showed it to Ben Franklin.
• Ron Paul can recite pi to 1776 decimal places.
• Ron Paul doesn’t drink tea; just water from Boston Harbor.  
• Why did the chicken cross the road? To vote for Ron Paul.
• Ron Paul can read minds, but he doesn’t, because that’s an invasion of privacy.
• The man in the moon taught his kids to look up at the earth to gaze at Ron Paul.
• Ron Paul can kill two birds with one stone, but he doesn’t, because he’s so in favor of non-violence.
• Ron Paul’s hemoglobin contains no iron; it’s on the gold standard.
• Ron Paul doesn’t pee; he liberates urine.
• Ron Paul gave up bowel movements when he was first elected to Congress; he’s that committed to getting rid of government waste.

They had called last spring, too. I told the guy last year that i was unsure if i could continue my support of Ligonier because of that fall 2006 article they published in Tabletalk by Clark, which so clearly distorted and skewed the issues concerning the Federal Vision. (Please Note: i am not a Federal Visionist, but i also don’t believe that the Federal Vision is some heretical sect to be shunned and excised from our ecclesiastical institutions.) Well, he told me last year that he would forward my concerns to RC (i know! my personal message to RC Sproul—are you impressed?) and they’d send me a special backage of samples of Tabletalk and tapes. Well, when it got here, it was a few old issues of Tabletalk, a tape about Christology, and a form letter from RC about how they’re trying to advance Reformed teaching through Ligonier. Big whoop. Suffice to say, it didn’t inspire me to pull my checkbook out and put Ligonier Ministries on the dotted line.

Well, Wednesday’s call was the follow-up for that call months ago. He said that his notes showed my concern about Ligonier’s stance on the Federal Vision. I could hardly believe my ears when this caller (a man who sounded at least my age if not older) responded with this question: “You mean our view of government? Separation of Church and State, or something like that?” Um, no.

Of course i told him that since they had last called, RC royally stuck his foot in his mouth by saying what he said on the floor of 2007 GA. As a result, i told him, i won’t be able to support Ligonier anymore, unless something drastically changes. I don’t have enough money (nor do i have a low enough view of the Church) to give my money to a ministry that is perpetuating the division rather than trying to heal it. I’ll save my money for ministries (of the Church) that do seek for Christian unity and not further schism.