Light-work

The Babylon Code, Pt. 1 of 2

The Book of Revelation is quite graphic in its description of the Fall of Babylon. This city boasts a long history and notorious reputation. Originally founded by Nimrod (Gen. 10:8,10), it soon became the focal point of men's celebration of their own accomplishments. Bad idea! God intervened and the city was branded with a fitting designation: Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth (Gen. 11:9).

Despite this setback, Babel refused to go away nor mend its ways. Notably, Babylon (same city) was the destroyer of Jerusalem and the Temple in 586 BC. In her historic heyday, power, wealth, commerce, and wisdom were hers. The OT prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah would describe her as idolatrous, wicked, arrogant, self-confident, covetous, cruel, and domineering. Babylon is less than a shadow of her former self today, so it is curious that she is presented once more in Revelation 17-18 as the global focal point of man centered religion.

Bible students differ in their identification of "Babylon" in Revelation. It would seem straightforward to identify it with a rebuilt city on the Euphrates river (see image above). The vast gap between the current state of affairs (quite humble) and the future state of Babylon (grand and impressive) suggests the merit of finding another interpretive option. So some have proposed that "Babylon" is a code word for some other physical city (Rome or Jerusalem are often suggested), an institution or entity (the "apostate church" or papacy are often proposed), or a "Babylonian ideology" that gains a global hold on men's thinking.

We need to remember that this is a problem of biblical interpretation. If the text is clearly discussing a rebuilt city of Babylon on the Euphrates in Iraq, then we must choose to believe what Scripture says will happen MORE than we believe our own perceptions of what could be. Yes, I have difficulty imagining a world class city like the one described in Revelation 17-18 coming into such wealth and prominence out of the current political, military, and economic milieu. But I must not allow the limits of my imagination to dismiss out of hand what the text might clearly be saying. Bottom line: I am open to all the options.

All views which propose that "Babylon" is a code word or symbol face a serious difficulty. They lack a decoder. There are 29 phrases or terms used in Revelation that are clearly symbolic. And all 29 of them are identified as symbols by the use of a key term or phrase which connects the symbol to what it represents. The first of these code-breaker phrases in the Book of Revelation appear in 1:20: “As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches (Rev. 1:20). (I have highlighted the code-breakers in blue.) No such code-breakers are used with the term "Babylon" to indicate it represents something else. In fact, the exact opposite occurs. A woman sitting on a scarlet beast is clearly identified as code or a symbol of the great city of Babylon (Rev. 17:3-5). Babylon is not the symbol but the reality behind the symbol (which is a harlot in scarlet and purple).

The view that this is the actual city of Babylon on the Euphrates at the apex of a future "greatness" is the conclusion of a plain sense reading of the text. In Rev. 2-3, John clearly intends the mention of a city name to be taken literally. In the one place in the prophecy where he employs a code name for an actual city, he provides a clear code-breaker: And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified (Rev. 11:8).

Several descriptive details add to the impression that the actual city of Babylon is targeted in Rev. 17-18: The fact that the Euphrates River is specifically named in 9:14 and 16:12 marks out a geographical area connected to Babylon as a key focus of coming judgment. The suggestion that Babylon has access to the sea is a detail that fits with Babylon on the Euphrates which is navigable to the Persian Gulf. The descriptive phrase "which sits on many waters," itself a code phrase for the city's global dominance (17:15), recalls Jeremiah's use of this language to describe Babylon (Jer. 51:13), a city of canals, waterways, and marshes. The position of the city "in the wilderness" (Rev. 17:3) is a detail that would also fit Babylon on the Euphrates, although it is not clear if this phrase indicates the city's location prior to or after her judgment.

I find the view that this is the actual city of Babylon on the Euphrates to be more persuasive. Of course, this raises some other questions: Does this mean that the events described in Revelation are "a long ways off" since it would take years for such a city to become a reality? And, does the urgent appeal for saints to "come out of her [Babylon]" (Rev. 18:4) have no relevance to saints living today since this Babylon does not yet exist?

Good questions! What do you think?

An "Unusual" Ultimatum?

I read about a curious conversation from the life of King David. To appreciate what caught my ear, ponder the art of the ultimatum. Presidents and Kings need to be masters of the art when declaring a final demand, one whose rejection will end negotiations and be followed by a resort to force. There are lots of ways to mess up.

• The Petulant: Provoke a fight that's not worth fighting.
• The Pacifist: Fail to issue an ultimatum when vital interests are threatened.
• QuickDraw McGraw: Issue an ultimatum when there are viable alternatives still on the table.
• Johnny-Come-Lately: Issue an ultimatum after a "point of no return" has already been passed.
• Mr. Hollow Threat: Draw an appropriate line in the sand, but attach it to a threat you have no intention of using.
• The Cream-Puff: Make a reasonable demand, but attach it to a threat of insufficient force.

The above possibilities are enough (there are plenty more) to illustrate how easy it is to get it wrong and singularly daunting it is to get it right. David understood this art well. While Saul was still alive and seeking David's death, a group from the tribe of Benjamin came to his stronghold. Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin, so David had good reason to be suspicious of the intentions of these new recruits. He delivered a "choose-whom-you-will-serve" ultimatum: Then some of the sons of Benjamin and Judah came to the stronghold to David. David went out to meet them, and said to them, “If you come peacefully to me to help me, my heart shall be united with you; but if to betray me to my adversaries, since there is no wrong in my hands, may the God of our fathers look on it and decide” (1 Chron. 12:16-17).

What kind of ultimatum is this? The first half makes perfect sense: Help me and we will become a great team. But in the second half, David's "threat" would strike a "modern man of enlightenment" as the words of the cream-puff: Mess with me and you'll have to deal with God. In a day when life is defined with God factored out of the equation, a threat has no "teeth" when it invokes God.

To get an appreciation for the modern irony of David's ultimatum, imagine saying this to a robber who has you at gun point: "Walk away. If you don't, you will answer to God for whatever you have done to me." How many thieves would find this compelling? How many would flee in terror for their fear of God?

David's ultimatum is a window into a value system profoundly different from modernity. David knew how to wield a big stick, but the verdict of heaven's opinion was of far greater consequence. The worst possible outcome, from David's perspective, was for a man to be on God's bad side. The poverty of modern "threat making" stands in such stark contrast. Where there is no respect for God, men are left to issue ultimatums that depend entirely upon their own efforts. Such ultimatums only carry as much force as the stick one is able and willing to wield.

Do we believe that men will answer to God for their actions? Is this the worst that could happen to those who act on their intentions against us? Is this what leaks out when we utter a threat? If not, our value system may fit the times but not the heart of David, a "man after God's own heart."

Some Perspective on Journalistic Objectivity

Fox News has become the brunt of censure from the White House with President Obama weighing in today. Alas, the president said nothing to counter the broadsides lobbed at Fox. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has announced that Fox News is  “not a news organization so much as it has a perspective.” David Axelrod went on ABC's "This Week" and called for a proper shunning of Fox by the "good" news organizations.

Is anyone in doubt about what is REALLY going on here? The king’s wrath is like the roaring of a lion, But his favor is like dew on the grass (Prov. 19:12). The President and his administration define a respectable news organization as one that aids and agrees with them. An illegitimate one hinders and questions. The former will receive praise and benefits, the latter will hear the lion roar. President Nixon had his "enemies list" and Lamar Alexander (see clip above) sees the beginnings of something similarly unproductive in this dustup.

Journalistic objectivity, the notion that news can be reported from some value-free neutrality, is a fiction. The optimist and the pessimist report the same fact about their glass of water. But declaring it "half full" or "half empty" ascribes to this fact meaning that comports with their decidedly different outlooks. All news organizations attempt to give meaning to the facts they report; they use them to tell a story drawn from what is seen and heard. Their selection of what video clips to show (and which to reject), how it should be edited, and which sound bites to play will reflect their sense of what is important.

So I find it more than a little ridiculous for Fox to be impugned for offering "perspective," when every news organization does no less. In fact, I appreciate Fox for regularly bringing together proponents of opposing views, a practice rarely seen on the "good" news networks. Which is worse, the news organization that is clear about its "perspective," or one which peddles "perspective" no less while pretending it doesn't?

I am not objective. I am unashamed, even proud, to view my world through the lens of the Bible. Where someone might celebrate the latest victory for a "woman's right to choose," I will weep for the innocents. The goal is not to jettison perspective, but to adopt the right perspective, which, from my perspective, will be God's.

Introducing FlemCare

Countless noble evergreens have given their lives for the cause of health care - the various mega bills that have been littering congressional committee rooms are but the last vestiges of the pulp they sacrificially yielded to the cause. Would that a spirited lawyer would represent these silent giants of wood and dell in their struggles against the ravages of health care.

Alas, no champion has stepped forth: We must save them by throwing a wrench of simplicity into the gear-works of bureaucracy. After much deep thought (for about 5 minutes), I have come to my eureka moment. I hereby propose for your consideration "FlemCare: Health Insurance for Everyman." It doesn't require two reams of paper per copy; it operates on a very simple premise that can be captured in a single sentence - Allow every individual to enjoy the full benefits of the health-care he reckons worth having.

I will parse this principle, the FlemCare Prime Directive, momentarily. First note two operational requirements for FlemCare to work well. (1) "Group health insurance" premiums would be considered income and subject to income tax. (2) Individual health insurance premiums would be exempt from income tax (up to a certain amount). This would give everyone with income a "tax discount" for purchasing individual health insurance. By giving a tax advantage to individual health insurance plans, FlemCare creates an environment conducive to individual choice, where every individual gets Goldilocks insurance - "just right!"

Okay, let's break down the core principle: Allow every individual to enjoy all the benefits of the health-care he reckons worth having. Note first the phrase "reckons worth having." It represents that an individual makes some quantifiable determination of the value of a health-care package. He attaches a number to it, a price he is willing to pay for what he receives. A package is "reckoned worth having" when a man buys it. "To allow every individual to enjoy the full benefits" means to give him free and unhindered access to the services for which he has paid. If a man purchases a "$100 discount on every prescription," he has a contractual right to receive that benefit.

Remove restrictions limiting the number of insurance companies that can compete in any given state. Remove requirements about the types of coverage that have to be included in their products. Allow insurance companies to sell insurance as car companies sell cars. Allow them to develop SUV's, sedans, pickups and sports cars. Allow them to create "options" that can be added to a plan based upon the customer's needs. Allow insurance companies to price plans according to a risk assessment for each individual. If they want to offer a non-smoker a cheaper policy, let them. (As is currently the case with life insurance.) Allow companies to market packages they believe will sell and allow buyers to purchase plans they want.

Under FlemCare, everyone goes out and buys the insurance plan he considers to be a bargain and suited to his needs. As a bonus, he gets a tax break on premiums. This feature of FlemCare accomplishes something important. It requires the government to support health care by a "loss of tax revenue," NOT through an increase in revenue.

So here's what everyone does under FlemCare: Individuals purchase what they want and enjoy a tax break for doing so. Insurance companies compete for the business of individuals by providing superior products at competitive prices. The government requires that insurance providers market their products using some sort of straight-forward and standardized "benefit and cost summary," kind of like a new car sticker or the "Good Faith Estimate" you received when you applied for a home mortgage. The judicial system would make sure that individuals receive the benefits they have purchased and that companies compete fairly. The government would also operate the "FlemCare Reallocation Plan" and "FlemCare Grace" described below.

Under FlemCare, you do not have to be a US citizen to participate. Individuals are free to purchase coverage and companies are free to sell coverage to all US citizens and residents. This solves the "illegal aliens" problem. If they want to buy insurance and get a tax break, let them.

What about those who have a pre-existing condition or some other situation that makes them "uninsurable?" An enterprising insurance provider might establish themselves in this niche market by providing a product line suited to the needs of their customers and priced at a level appropriate to the risk. But, to be sure, there will be some who cannot afford the high rates their risk category would call for. What should be done?

Those who cannot afford or elect not to purchase health care would fall under the FlemCare Reallocation Plan. Here's how it works: Whenever someone without health care receives uncovered care, their medical providers should be paid by drawing from the recipient's government entitlements like welfare, unemployment, and social security. For example, Joe is 59, has no insurance and incurs a bill for $10,000 at the local hospital. The government would pay his bill but recover the expense by delaying his social security eligibility date for about one year. It would be as if Joe got an advance from social security to pay his hospital bill.

Granted, an uninsured cancer patient could easily incur costs that bar him from drawing social security until he is 92. But that was his choice when he elected not to buy insurance. The marvelous advantage of this plan is that it results in a "zero net cost" because money for health costs is offset by corresponding reductions in other government entitlements.

What makes FlemCare so different from all the current proposals is its rigid insistence that individuals receive the benefits and consequences of their choices. This is clearly a biblical notion: "For each one will bear his own load" (Gal 6:5). "Health-care" which insists that everyman has a right to something he has not earned moves all men toward indolence. Not very healthy!

There is one more aspect to FlemCare, "FlemCare Grace." For those who are facing a medical crisis without insurance, the government could maintain a website discretely summarizing their situations. Here is where grace would find a place in FlemCare. Individuals would be encouraged to make donations to these needs. Because of its commitment to "improved health care," the government would treat the donor's gift as tax deductible and the income to the recipient as tax exempt. The lost revenue would be the government's way of saying, "We want to match someone's gift with a nice little bonus. We want you to be taken care of enough to ask for less from you."

Our Senators and Representatives have championed the cause of the uninsured. "FlemCare Grace" would give them (and all who have a heart of genuine compassion) a very direct way to address the need. I would be delighted for our congressmen to lead the way by giving extravagantly toward the grace plan from their own pockets. Now that would be leadership!

Tell your friends and neighbors about Flemcare where every individual enjoys the full benefits of the health-care he reckons worth having! Tell your congressman about FlemCare! Tell me what you think?

Eighty Acres of Cash

(The photo above shows the 11 acre plot on which Collierville Bible Church was built - hold that thought!)

Fox News ran a story today, although the issue hasn't gotten much of a media spotlight. It should! The Congressional Budget Office report on fiscal 2009 shows some serious deficit spending went down. When you compare how much Uncle Sam spent in the last 12 months with how much revenue he received, there is a $1.4 trillion shortfall. We have all gotten used to saying "trillion," perhaps we need a refresher on what this represents.

Let's make a stack of one dollar bills. To give our stack some stability, we will lay 4 bills end to end. We will add 5 more similar rows adjacent to our first row. So now we have completed our first layer that is 4 by 6 bills in size, roughly 2' by 15". Next we will add 41,667 more such layers (and subtract 8 bills from the last layer) to make it an even $1,000,000. This stack will be a few inches shy of 14 feet tall. (A dollar bill is 0.010922 cm thick.) Okay, that's our first stack.

Now let's repeat the same process and create an additional one million four hundred thousand more "one million dollar stacks." If we butt each new stack up against the previous one in a long line, we would create a side of 1,183 stacks. We would then form a second side of 1,183 stacks perpendicular to the first. Now we just fill in the interior defined by our two adjacent sides with 1,397,124 more "one million dollar stacks," and, voila, we have a handy (maybe not so handy) visual representation of what $1.4 trillion dollars looks like.

Our resultant rectangular solid will be 2,366 feet long (almost one half mile), almost 1,479 feet wide (a little over one quarter mile), and slightly under fourteen feet tall. This is the equivalent of an 80 acre parcel of land covered to a depth of fourteen feet with tightly stacked dollar bills. That is over seven parcels just like the one pictured above, cleared of all trees and stacked tightly to a depth of 14 feet with dollar bills.  80 acres of cash with 41,667 layers of dollars bills covering the entirety represents how much more the government spent in the last year than it received in revenue. How encouraging!

Believe the Madman!

I remember the haunting words of a Jewish Holocaust survivor. He explained that those who avoided the death camps believed Hitler. As "der Fuhrer's" fierce rhetoric waxed against the Jews, a few took him seriously and fled. The survivor's family believed Hitler's words and fled to the United States. They left behind friends and neighbors who found Hitler's blustering rants unbelievable. They reasoned, "Surely no one would allow such a madman to effect such schemes. Surely our friends and neighbors will rise to our defense. Surely everyone sees that the man is crazy." Upon leaving Germany, the survivor never saw these friends and neighbors again. Their incredulity fed a vain and diminishing hope that was extinguished in the ashes of Auschwitz.

Fatal optimism yet lives! Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has spoken plainly enough. He has declared that Israel should be "wiped off the map." He has the missile capability to do so. He is near acquiring the nuclear capability to do so. And, most importantly, he demonstrates the will to use these capabilities. Some might demur that acting on these aspirations would be suicidal. They might declare, "Surely no one would allow such a madman to effect such schemes. Surely he would not hazard the wrath and reprisal of the international community?"

Benjamin Netanyahu, the current prime minister of Israel, believes the madman. He is settled in his conviction that the risks to Israel from a nuclear Iran are unacceptable. There is NO DOUBT in my mind that he is preparing to extinguish Iran's nuclear facilities. Even if a coalition (that includes Russia and China) could be cobbled together, and if that coalition could muster enough chutzpah to effect harsh sanctions, and if this could be immediately effected and vigorously maintained (those are some very iffy "ifs."), there may not be enough time for such measures to achieve the desired effect. Netanyahu knows this, and also has reason (justified in my mind) to think that President Obama will not support the military action he is planning. He is alone, the clock is ticking, and he believes the madman.

There is a high probability that Israel will launch an attack against Iran in the near future. There is also a high probability that Iran will lob a nuclear warhead into Israel as soon as it is able. It is unclear who will take action first. But let's be clear about about this: Throwing firebrands is the madman's trademark. He may disguise his intentions even by feigning affability, but he is prepared to deal in death. Brace yourselves!

Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows and death, so is the man who deceives his neighbor, and says, “Was I not joking?” (Prov. 26:18-19).

Crockettcare vs. Obamacare, Part 2 of 2

Who ya' gonna call when you need health care relief FAST. Yea, that's the "King of the Wild Frontier" on the left and he has a totally different take on how to tackle the problem. If you have got the context from the previous post, then read on for the rest of the story. (Note: This is longer than my usual post, but you'll be glad to have read it.) The "narrator" continues:

Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.

Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.

I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:

"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."

He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said:

"Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."

I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:

Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.

The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.

The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.

So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don't be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted."

He replied: "I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."

I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and – "

"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."

"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."

"No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"

"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."

"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"

Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."

I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:

"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."

I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."

He laughingly replied:

"Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way."

"If I don't," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."

"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."

"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."

"My name is Bunce."

"Not Horatio Bunce?"

"Yes."

"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go."

We shook hands and parted.

It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.

I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him – no, that is not the word – I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted – at least, they all knew me.

In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"Fellow citizens – I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."

I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."

He came upon the stand and said:

"Fellow citizens – It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today."

He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

"Now, Sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.

"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased – a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

Crockettcare vs. Obamacare, Part 1 of 2

There are times, rare mind you, when a forwarded email from well-meaning friends is a sockdolager ("something outstanding or exceptional, a decisive answer"). But I received one a few weeks ago. It was an excerpt from The Life of Colonel David Crockett written by Edward S. Ellis and published in 1884. The excerpt consisted of the majority of chapter XIII, titled, "A Sensible and Timely View of a Certain Constitutional Question." I was taken aback by the relevance of this chapter to our current debate over health care, so much so that I questioned its genuineness. Surely something so pointed and clear to a current issue could not have been written 125 years ago!

So I sought a copy of the book to satisfy myself that I wasn't being scammed by another internet masquerade. In 2004, University Press of the Pacific in Honolulu issued a reprint of the original which I was able to procure from those amazing book purveyors at Amazon. Sure enough, chapter XIII lines up with the email version.

There is no record of the "Not Yours to Give" speech delivered by Crockett: Neither the Register of Speeches nor the Congressional Globe have transcripts of speeches made on the House floor. However, Crockett's vote and personal actions in reference to a similar bill (in April, 1828) are consistent with the position espoused in this speech. The author, Edward Ellis, introduces this chapter as the recollections of an unnamed "narrator" whose business affairs brought him to Washington. The narrator recounts his observations of Crockett on the House floor and a personal exchange a few days later. Here is part one of this account.

Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.

I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support – rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

"Mr. Speaker – I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

What Gets You Outraged?

Yesterday, we noted that Joe the Shouter was about to get his comeuppance. The House did not disappoint. Their most common punishments for members are expulsion, censure, reprimand or fine. But they decided to use a lesser measure, a "resolution of disapproval." Wilson's conduct was cited as a "breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings of the joint session, to the discredit of the House." The vote was, understandably, divided along party lines. I'm not sure if the Democrats have exhausted their outrage, yet. Presumably, they are now ready to get back to business as usual.

Here is an irony. Fox News has been showing a series of video-taped interchanges between Acorn staff members and a filmmaker and associate posing as a pimp and prostitute. Click here to watch one. A fourth videotape was shown last night and another is promised for today. The one from last night was outrageous! I have no doubt there will be an ample supply of spin and dissembling from those associated with Acorn. I am confident  that the film-makers and their work will be scorned and discredited.

But how can you watch these interviews and not marvel at Acorn staff members' nonchalance, even enthusiasm, while their clients outline a scheme that reeks of  debauchery? Where is the shock, where is the outrage? Where is the staff member who warns, "What you are doing is terribly wrong. You need to get your life headed in the right direction."

What a contrast between Acorn staff's casual response to gross immorality and the passionate ado of The House over a two-word breech of decorum. Mind you, I am not making little of House Democrats. Let them enjoy their diversion. But the quickness and intensity of their disapproval serves to highlight its absence at Acorn.

What a sad commentary on our society that many view immoral behavior with casual acceptance, even with a tinge of pride in their enlightened tolerance. The Apostle Paul dealt with something similar in what was the "sin city" of his time, Corinth. A young man was having a brazen affair with his step mom, and those who knew the parties involved were celebrating their enlightenment in accepting this as normal. Paul declared, "It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst" (1 Cor. 5:1-2).

One of the litmus tests of the health of our society, and our churches, is our ability to lament sin. If the response of Acorn staffers is a window into the heart of our culture, heaven help us. When Jesus said, “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted” (Matt. 5:4), He was talking about being broken-hearted by the things that break God's heart. My heart is broken by what these Acorn interviews say about who we are becoming. God forgive us.

Joe the Shouter

I was shocked, shocked, I say, to hear someone shout, "You lie," during the President's recent address to Congress on September 9. That someone was Representative Joe Wilson from South Carolina. Ms. Pelosi's break from her glazed default position was but the first of what has become swelling outrage over the congressman's cheek. I am not about to defend the man's act; he himself has admitted there is no defense by personally apologizing to the President and Vice-President.

But let's put things in perspective. On Sunday, Sept 13, Chris Wallace of Fox News interviewed Representative Joe. Here's the transcript. After playing a video clip of the President's speech and Rep. Wilson's "town hall moment," he was asked what he was thinking when he shouted, "You lie!" Here's his response:

I just felt so provoked because I am on committee, on the committee -- Education and Labor. I know the amendments that were on Ways and Means -- at Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce that the Democrats voted down for citizenship verification. So I knew what he said was not true. I read the bill. I read all 1,000 pages.

In other words, although the proposed bill (or bills) did not authorize the provision of health care for illegal immigrants, an illegal immigrant would be able to freely access these benefits. Joe Wilson was outraged because some disingenuous razzmatazz was creating free health care for illegals while giving the impression of doing the exact opposite. The inclusion of a "no-health-care-for-illegal-immigrants" provision was mere wrapping paper. As if to make his point, the inclusion of a real enforcement mechanism has now become a live issue in deliberations by the gang of six currently drafting a Senate bill.

For someone to lie, two conditions must be met: He must misrepresent the facts and know that he is misrepresenting the facts. Simply getting your facts wrong can involve making an honest mistake. But when a man states what is untrue, and knows it is untrue, he has lied. As Rep. Joe listened to the President's speech, he assumed two things: What the President is saying is not true, and the President knows it.

Checking the first condition for lying is relatively simple: How do the facts line up with what someone has said? In this case, the facts appear to cut both ways. A "no-illegals" provision is in the the bill. But the absence of adequate enforcement of this provision makes its inclusion pointless. I'm with Joe on test #1. An unenforced denial of benefits equals a provision of benefits.

The second question is a lot trickier because you have to get in someone's head. Joe Wilson assumed that the President could not possibly think that this bill, despite its professions to the contrary, would deny health care to an illegal immigrant. Joe's outburst reflected his conclusion that the President knew better, that he was consciously deceiving Congress. On this count, I am not sure. It is possible that the President knows the toothlessness of this denial constitutes a de facto provision of health care to illegals. But it is also possible the President thinks that simply because he has said, "no-health-care-for-illegal-immigrants," it will somehow happen.

Even "Joe the Shouter" has dialed it back. Later in his interview with Chris Wallace, he acknowledged that the President did not meet both tests for lying: Got his facts wrong, yes. Intentionally misrepresented the facts, no comment. Here's the dialog:

WALLACE: Do you think when the president was saying what he said there that he was lying?

WILSON: I believe he was misstating the facts.

WALLACE: Well, you didn't say that. You said, "You lie."

WILSON: Well, I truly would have said it in a different way if I had time. And I — I respect, again, the president. But what he said was not accurate and that's why I'm glad they've now agreed to having citizen verification on Friday.

Getting at the facts can be a challenge, but it is nothing compared to getting in another man's head! So, Joe's outburst might have benefited by sticking closer to the facts. Had he shouted - "Not true!" - he could have stayed away from claims that assume his accuracy as a mind-reader.

I am confident that the Democratically controlled congress will make an example of "Joe the Shouter." I wonder if they will succeed in crowning him as a poster boy for town-hall discontent and award him a land-slide re-election. Frankly, there is something to admire in the man. We are hungry for representatives who will boldly speak up against business-as-usual politics. Joe the Shouter may have displayed the right stuff.

What Stimulus Stimulates

"Stimulus" can take many forms. Las Vegas is the consummate student of the subject and has applied its knowledge to great effect. Every year, millions are stimulated to excitedly empty their wallets and purses to benefit "the house." In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA's snazzy new logo above), the US Government has attempted to use its own special blend of stimulus to address the economic crisis.

Congress brewed up a mighty big batch of the stuff, $787 billion's worth! But it's for a noble cause, as the "full title" makes very clear: An act making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes. Obviously, this is a very noble cause, indeed! The specific provisions of the bill have been much debated. So I thought it might be helpful, instead, to deconstruct the concept of "stimulus." Let's ask the simple question, "What is it about this bill that renders it into 'stimulus?'"

A good place to begin is in the retelling of a common story used to illustrate the "two sides" of stimulus. Once upon a time, a vandal named Rufio threw a brick through a shop-keeper's storefront window. Geppetto came outside to examine the damage where he was met by some of his fellow townsfolk. Wanting to help Geppetto "look on the bright side," they encouraged him in the knowledge that this unfortunate event would have positive consequences. They first observed how the town glazier would have the benefit of gainful employment. He, in turn, would be able to use what he earned replacing Geppetto's window to pay for food for his family. This act would put money in the pocket of the grocer who would spend it for clothing, thereby aiding the local tailor. As their creativity waxed on, the original scofflaw seemed the perfect hero of economic recovery.

But, there is another side to what happened. Rufio's actions stole a choice from Geppetto. Before his window was broken, the money that it would cost to replace the glass was his to use as he chose. He could have saved it, if he wanted, or spent it for whatever purpose he deemed most desirable. But when Rufio did his work of "stimulating" the local economy, he imposed upon the shop-keeper's liberty. He compelled Geppetto to use his own money to pay for something that Rufio determined should be purchased.

Without Rufio's vandalism, Geppetto's decisions about how to spend his money would have had no less stimulatory effect on the local economy. The same domino effect would have occurred, albeit without its necessary starting point at the glazier's shop. Rufio stole from Geppetto the right to choose how he would use his own money. Rufio's brick was simply about control.

Is this not the heart of what is euphemistically being called "economic stimulus?" Our government (the Rufio counterpart) is collecting money from us, the Gepettos of America, and thereby curtailing our liberty. Instead of allowing us the freedom to decide for ourselves how best to use our money, Rufio / Uncle Sam is compelling it to be spent as he sees fit. Some might object, "Isn't this what government does, take our money to buy what it decides to?" Precisely! This is just bloated government doing what bloated government does, but with a new label intended to dress up the whole business as something noble.

Alas, what Uncle Sam is doing is actually even more egregious than Rufio. The ARRA bill spends almost a trillion dollars that the government does not have in its possession. So where does the money come from? Ultimately, from "future Geppetto." Uncle Sam takes out a loan to get his hands on the dollars to fund his bill. He is able to secure this loan from creditor nations on the promise to pay it back (with interest) from future tax revenue. Uncle Sam has limited the freedom of "future Geppetto" by saddling him with a debt obligation for the things that Uncle Sam has determined should be purchased right now.

The Cash for Clunkers program which "ran out of cash" yesterday (thankfully) took "stimulus" to new heights: It incentivized Geppetto to voluntarily smash his own window. He would be given a cash incentive to buy a new "energy efficient" window, which Uncle Sam would partially pay for by taking money from "future Geppetto."

So tell me, Geppetto, what does this "stimulus" stimulate in you?

Love With A Will

In the letter to the church in Ephesus recorded in Revelation 2:1-8, Jesus affirms this congregation on several counts: They are hard working, persevering, devoted to the truth, and intolerant of false teachers. There is one warning sign: “But I have this against you, that you have left your first love” (Rev. 2:4). The terms of Jesus' condemnation make it clear that the Ephesians' love has been trending in the wrong direction. They formerly possessed a "first love," but have lost it. Where you would expect someone to love the Lord more with the passage of time, the Ephesians actually love the Lord LESS. This is abnormal and definitely a sign of something serious!

Their sister church, Thyatira, demonstrated what should have been: “I know your deeds, and your love and faith and service and perseverance, and that your deeds of late are greater than at first” (Rev. 2:19). The "deeds" of the Thyatiran believers are specified in the four terms, love, faith, service, and perseverance. In all four categories, this church has made progress. For example, their love has grown stronger with the passage of time. They mark a bold contrast with Ephesus where love has waned.

What, exactly, happened in Ephesus? And how would one who has "lost his first love" go about reclaiming it? Answering these question has been rendered more difficult for our culture's preoccupation with a type of "love" that is nothing of the sort. D. G. Myers has a fine post on his "commonplace blog" exploring the literary expressions of this pre-occupation. He elucidates, "All the literary world loves a lover, especially if passion overwhelms his commitments and will." Our Western culture is awash in glorious depictions of love as this powerful and external force prevailing over good sense, honor, and restraint. 

So, when contemporary Western Christians think of a "first love," they are quick to associate this phrase with the onset of an external force, something like the landfall of a hurricane. To "recover" a first love seems as attainable as conjuring the hurricane. How do you "recover" something that is not under your control, something that, in point of fact, controls you?

The problem, here, is created by a case of mistaken identity. The irresistible hurricane of passion is not love. It might be called as much by some, but it is diametrically opposed to what Jesus calls "love." In Jesus' dictionary, love is synonymous with unconditional commitment. This true form of love resists the hurricane; it boldly declares, "I will love you as a matter of choice. Despite whatever winds oppose that commitment, I will remain true to you."

Myers cites a McClatchy Newpapers post that provides a poignant illustration of the contrast between love that is commitment and "love" that destroys commitment. South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has shown the latter by his adulterous relationship with an Argentine television journalist. The former shines forth in a statement by his wife, Jenny Sanford. Here is a key excerpt: "I believe enduring love is primarily a commitment and an act of will, and for a marriage to be successful, that commitment must be reciprocal. . . . I remain willing to forgive Mark completely for his indiscretions and to welcome him back, in time, if he continues to work toward reconciliation with a true spirit of humility and repentance."

Only when we understand that the "first love" of which Jesus speaks is commitment love can we understand His appeal to recover it. He is asking the Ephesian believers to renew their commitment to Himself. He is asking them, as a matter of the will, to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength" (Mark 12:30). When this commitment of heart is increasingly evident in a person's life, he is moving in the right direction. When it becomes less and less evident, he is courting danger and vulnerable to the hurricane.

Not Your Grandma's World

A profound demographic shift is transforming the western world. Birth control (with great dependance on abortion) was supposed to solve the problem of global over-population. Instead, it has doomed our grand children to live in a culture increasingly dominated by Islamic influence. This video is a clear and concise summary of what is happening. How does its insight into our future affect what you do today?

Less Me for More Sam

Here are some interesting stats from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since there is an ample supply of economic optimism out there, I thought I might suggest a little perspective. In the last year, private sector employment has gone down 5.9%. That represents a payroll reduction of 6.8 million people. In the same period, government employment has expanded by 5.8%, adding 1.3 million folks to the payroll.

When the current administration tells you they are saving jobs, this report backs them up. Over a million jobs have been created! There's just one teensy-weensy problem. Those 1.3 million jobs are tax-payer funded jobs. And the private labor pool that makes those government jobs possible is shrinking. A year ago there were 5.4 taxpayers for every government employee. Now 4.8 taxpayers have to do what 5.4 did in 2008. To pay the expanding pool of government workers, the shrinking pool of private sector workers will have to supply over 10% more in revenue. What a thrilling prospect!

This reminds me of the time when Pharaoh told Israel that their production quota's would remain the same even though their supply of straw would be eliminated. I feel their pain!

Who's Got Your Number?

Sometime in the future a very powerful smart idol will "encourage" allegiance to a charismatic world leader. Most folks will receive this encouragement as an offer that cannot be refused. A few will see past the hocus-pocus, declining to join the fan club despite the cost: These are the overcomers who are victorious over the beast (the antichrist) and his image - see previous post for more info.

But there is a third facet to their victory. In Revelation 15:2, we learn that they are also victorious over "the number of his name." Now how do you achieve victory over a number? To answer that question let's consider Revelation 13:16-18, which declares: And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six (Rev. 13:16-18).

Lots of energy has been consumed in attempting to make a positive ID on the number "666." It seems warranted because of the exhortation to "calculate" this number and the tantalizing prospect that someone who solves this high-stakes Sudoku puzzle "gets it," he understands. So there has been no small amount of speculation about what it represents. I won't go into all the proposals; they are myriad.

I am of the opinion (and it is just an opinion) that solving the 666 puzzle will be impossible until we pass a certain juncture in future events. Once we pass that juncture, anyone with a biblically informed understanding will "get it" quite easily. There is a biblical precedent for this idea. On the night in which He was betrayed, Jesus explained, “But these things I have spoken to you, so that when their hour comes, you may remember that I told you of them” (John 16:4). Jesus predicted future events knowing full well that his disciples couldn't possibly anticipate how they would be fulfilled. However, He did not provide this information so that they could predict what would happen in the future but recognize what was happening for what it was once it had occurred. His prophecy was not about prediction but recognition!

I think that the "triple six" number system will be immediately recognized (by overcomers) for what it is when it actually appears. The saints will experience an "aha" moment when they are blinded by the obviousness of what they see. But, today, in the season when "666" is not manifest, every attempt to predict what to look for is a subjective stab in the dark.

What we can say right now and with certainty is this: The possession of this number is a requirement for market participation. The beast "provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name" (Rev. 13:17). Can you imagine having to survive in our modern world without buying and selling? I don't care how "off the grid" you live, buying and selling is still critical to your existence. Someday in the future, without a "beast mark" issued in the form of a name or number, you will be on your own.

So why would anyone refuse such a number. According to Revelation 14:9, receipt of a "beast mark" is a clear declaration of loyalty to this coming charismatic world leader and a declaration of opposition toward God: “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb” (Rev. 14:9-10). Anyone with the spiritual eyesight to see the issues clearly would realize that "taking a number" is a choice to keep the pantry stocked at the cost of incurring God's wrath! This is a no-brainer!

The "third victory" of the overcomer is a refusal to align himself with the antichrist even though it means his exclusion from the marketplace. When the time comes and when everyone around him thinks having a triple six makes perfect sense, he will KNOW this is a course defined by perfect stupidity. When told to "take a number," he will respond without hesitation, "Take a hike!"

This is SO Encouraging!

The Federal Reserve (sometimes called "the Fed") is the central banking system of the United States created in 1913. Despite its title, the Federal Reserve is not very federal. Twelve privately owned regional banks are the heart of this system. A link between these banks and the government is provided by a "Board of Governors." The seven members of this committee are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for staggered terms of fourteen years. Ben Bernanke is the most well-known member of the committee and is currently completing a four year term as its chairman.

The Board of Governors operates under the watchful eyes of its Inspector General. According to its website, "the Office of Inspector General (OIG) is also responsible for preventing and detecting waste, fraud, and abuse at the Board, among other duties. The OIG achieves its legislative mandate through audits, evaluations, investigations, legislative reviews, and by keeping the Chairman of the Board and Congress fully informed."

So if you want to know what these private "Federal Reserve Banks" are doing, you would check in with the Board of Governors. And if you want to know if any monkey business is afoot among the Board of Governors, you would get a report from the Inspector General. So when you watch this video clip of recent testimony from the OIG, Ms. Elizabeth Coleman, I'm sure you will join me in breathing a sigh of relief and declaring, "This is SO encouraging!"

By the way, the cool cucumber asking the questions is Alan Grayson (D), representative from Florida's District 8. This testimony was given on May 12, 2009. 

Holy Hatred!

"Hate Crimes Legislation" attempts to make murder more egregious when it is motivated by hate. You might get the impression that hatred always makes things worse. No so, according to the Bible. In Revelation 2:6, Jesus commends an ancient church by saying, "Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate." Jesus considers it an earmark of a healthy church when they have a holy hatred for the same thing He hates.

If hating what God hates is a good thing, it's worth asking, “Are there other things that God hates?” Twenty are specifically mentioned in the Bible: The Lord hates the sacrifice of children to false gods (Deuteronomy 12:31); sacred pillars (Deuteronomy 16:22); those who do iniquity (Psalm 5:5); the one who loves violence (Psalm 11:5); hypocritical or heartless worship (Isaiah 1:14); robbery in the burnt offering (Isaiah 61:8); idolatry (Jeremiah 44:4); those who do wickedness (Hosea 9:15); impure worship (Amos 5:21); evil schemes against others and perjury (Zechariah 8:17); divorce and wrong-doing (Malachi 2:16). In Proverbs 6:16-19, we have a complete laundry list of the Lord’s “top seven” hatreds.

   

There are six things which the Lord hates,
    Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
    Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
    And hands that shed innocent blood,
    A heart that devises wicked plans,
    Feet that run rapidly to evil,
    A false witness who utters lies,
    And one who spreads strife among brothers.

This list orbits around two poles: False worship and mistreatment of others. The Lord loves it when we love God and love our neighbors. Here’s the hard-edged flip side: He HATES it when we do otherwise. The Lord finds false worship and false dealings with others absolutely distasteful. So when we can’t stand worship that is fake and compromised, when we are disgusted by injustice and mistreatment of others, that’s when Jesus says, “I can’t stand that either – it’s nice to meet a kindred spirit.”

In these oh-so-tolerant times, it is decidedly out of fashion to break from the homogenized spirituality that has become the norm. Oh, we might get our groove on for some praise singing, maybe even give the preacher an "Amen" now and then, but heaven forbid we develop the kind of fierce passion for God that gets worked up over the things He despises. Where are the lovers of God who share His hatred for what is unholy?

When Swine Fly

My plane from LAX pulled up to the gate at Tokyo Narita airport. The seat belt light had just been turned off but no one was moving. We had been instructed to sit tight in our seats and complete some health forms. Then a crew of 20-30 fully suited swine-flu spotters made their way down the aisles. Several carried thermal imaging guns to take everyone's temperature. Let it be known that Japan was taking no chances with "The Swine Flu Pandemic!"

A few hours later, I was in Singapore reading the FRONT PAGE headline from The Straights Times, the major English daily from Singapore: Flue Scare For Student Who Returned From Mexico. Here's the lead material:

He's admitted to CDC with running nose but tests show he's clear. An undergraduate who returned to Singapore last Friday from an exchange programme in Mexico caused a scare yesterday, when he woke up with a running nose and was admitted to the Communicable Disease Center (CDC). The fear of a first infected patient here turned out to be a false alarm when laboratory tests showed that Mr. Melvin Yang, 25, had not been infected by any Influenza A virus. Mr. Yang, who had been on self-imposed home quarantine, was not anxious because he thought that his running nose was probably due to his body adjusting back to the environment here. But the third year business student from the Nanyang Technological University decided to play it safe and call 993 for the special ambulance service to ferry him to CDC, where he got his throat swabbed and blood sample taken.

I am trying not to be cynical. It is especially hard now that the swine flu pandemic has turned out to be something of a non-event. But, what a commotion it caused at the time! Can you imagine the expense involved in personnel and equipment for flight screenings at Narita? And when a college kid has the sniffles, it's front page news in Singapore?

What a commentary on our values. We are spring loaded for panic when swine flu can fly, but thoroughly complacent about a greater disease that kills. Yesterday, the Shelby County Commission passed a resolution against job discrimination. Commissioner Steve Mulroy sponsored a provision that would have specifically named gays and lesbians among those protected from discrimination. This provision was dropped and a more generic version passed.

Doing what God prohibits and not doing what God requires (The Bible calls this "sin.") is detrimental to our health. When Adam and Eve sinned, they "infected" all of their progeny, including you and me, with this deadly disease. There is only one cure - the blood of the perfect donor, Jesus. But there is a catch. Not everyone who has the disease can admit it! And it makes no sense for those who do not admit they are sick to seek a cure.

At the County Commission meeting, the validation of a "lifestyle" was driving the agenda. When a lifestyle that is defined by sin is validated, there is less reason for someone to seek a remedy. Wouldn't it be great if our world cared about a cure for sin like we care about swine flu. I am under no delusions about when that day will come - when pigs can fly!

Round One Goes to Cheney

Yesterday, President Barrack Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney went man-on-man in rhetorical combat. I give this round to Cheney. What a clear and thoughtful explanation of the war on terror. His words provide essential context to understanding the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. I have attached a copy of his speech for your review - it is lengthy but worth your time.

Here is one of my favorite quotes: Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

Read the whole speech. What's your favorite quote?

When Moral High Ground is the Pits!

As I am listening to President Obama's "100 Days Press Conference," I am struck by his response to a water-boarding question. He believes this "enhanced interrogation technique" is torture and wants nothing to do with it. He expressed a commitment to "hold true to our ideals" even when doing so makes it harder to fight terrorism.

Will the President better protect our nation by seizing this moral high ground? Will he inspire those who hate us to admit the error of their ways? I can hear them now: "We've made a horrible mistake! Sure, we have not been above some righteous beheading now and then. But the great Satan has disdained interrogation techniques we consider comparatively tame. How he shames us with his obvious moral superiority! How wrong of us to think he is our enemy when he should be esteemed as our teacher."

My purpose in this moment is not to evaluate interrogation techniques or how shifting the line of demarcation between what we will and won't do will influence our national security. My attention was fixed on the glaring incongruity between what he considers "above his pay grade" and what he deems his moral obligation. The President wants to be able to sleep well at night in the knowledge that no one has been intentionally subjected to the fear of drowning on his watch. Yet, he is apparently capable of sleeping soundly while millions silently scream, their lives snuffed out by those who swear, "Primum non nocere."

The Declaration of Independence that captures our "ideals" names "life" as an unalienable right granted all men by their Creator. I am not closed to a debate about what constitutes torture. But spare me the tortured morality devoid of moral sensitivity to the greatest crime against humanity of our age. How disgusting to hear someone crowing about his scruples over scaring people when he so cavalierly dismisses the slaughter of the innocents. I think I'm going to puke.

An Apocalyptic "Smart Idol"

What would church be like if the morning message was delivered by the "Serminator?" Would it be an improvement to consult a cyborg "Bible answer man" who can instantly answer all of your questions? How will "technological progress" affect "the worship service of the future?"

We have smart bombs and smart home technology. Wait till you see the new "smart idol!" Some time in the foreseeable future, a religious leader called the "false prophet" will arise who assists a powerful governmental leader called "the antichrist" or "the beast." One of the great accomplishments of the false prophet will be creation of a "smart idol," an image of the beast that is capable of breathing and speaking. The achievement will be impressive enough to promote worship of the beast.

In a previous post, we noted that the inability of idols to speak diminishes their appeal. By solving this problem, the false prophet will take worship of the antichrist to a whole new level. Here's the Apostle John's warning about what to expect:

And he [the false prophet] deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast [the antichrist], telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who had the wound of the sword and has come to life. And it was given to him [the false prophet] to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed (Rev. 13:14-15).

This image appears to be a living thing, it speaks, and it kills. The Terminator series has already introduced us to the idea. The false prophet will take the idea and make it real in the world in which we now live. I do not know if this will be achieved through technology or something supernatural. But it will be utterly remarkable. Most men will be enthralled by the beast and captivated by his image. Those who see it for what it is, will discern a connection with the numbers 6-6-6, will be excluded from participation in the marketplace, and will be marked for extermination. The smart idol of the future will not be very tolerant. How politically incorrect!

Could a Terminator Reinvent Idolatry?

The fourth installment of the Terminator movie series is scheduled for release this May. Although the storyline of each movie reflects slightly different time-lines, a computer with artificial intelligence that realizes self awareness is central to each plot. This is not the first time men have spun tales about "when good inventions go bad." Frankenstein fits the profile, as does HAL in Space Odyssey, and a host of lesser lights from sci-fi movies screened during the cold war. But the Terminator series (and a TV spin-off, The Sarah Conner Chronicles) has made the possibility of men creating sentient beings seem believable.

Should the believable become real, a key stumbling block to idolatry would be removed. In yesterday's post, Idols are Dumb, we observed that the attraction of idolatry (which is self-worship) is compromised by the fact that an idol can't speak. So, when a man build's an idol to sing his praises, it bites that said idol has nothing to say!

What if a man could construct an image that speaks? And what if that image could declare the praises of his creator? And what if that image could come up with other witty things to say based upon its superior intelligence? An idol that speaks and is smart - what would men do if they beheld and heard such a thing? I am confident that virtually everyone would be totally smitten by the thing.

PM Netanyahu and "the Joker"

Last night, I watched the DVD, Epicenter, that is based on the book by the same name written by Joel Rosenberg. I especially found the segments from an interview of Benjamin Netanyahu to be informative and compelling. Mr. Netanyahu became the Prime Minister of Israel on March 31 and has a clear and settled understanding of Iran's intentions. The video clip from Glenn Beck is several years old but will allow you to listen first hand to this articulate and engaging leader without a teleprompter.

In his Mr. Netanyahu's view, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seeks to hasten the arrival of the Islamic Messiah by creating havoc and chaos. The destruction of Israel (little Satan) and America (the Great Satan) are vital to his plans. The acquisition of both nuclear weapons and an effective missile delivery system will dramatically improve his ability to achieve these ends.

Make no mistake - Ahmadinejad is crazy enough to relish the chance to use nukes. He is the living embodiment of "the Joker" as depicted by Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight. We are crazy if we think he is interested in a "sensible" resolution. I am glad that Israel has a leader who understands the threat and sees the need to take action. When Mr. Netanyahu does, he will probably be portrayed in the press as the crazy one. What a joke!

Ferdinand de Lesseps and Infectious Optimism

Everything David McCullough has written is worth reading. One of my favorites is The Path Between the Seas, the fascinating account of the creation of the Panama Canal. His almost 700 page volume is divided into three "books," each devoted to a major phase of the project. The first book chronicles the failed attempt by the French to build the canal, a debacle spanning the years 1870 and 1894.

The dominant figure in book one is Ferdinand de Lesseps. Ferdinand was a diplomat and optimist who seemed the perfect man for the job. He had employed his formidable skills to great effect in the successful completion of the Suez Canal. The Panama Canal seemed the logical next step, albeit this challenge was of far greater scale.

I find this statement from Wikipedia ironic: "He attempted to repeat this success [Suez] with an effort to build a lock-less version of the Panama Canal during the 1880s, but the project was finally completed by the United States in 1914, once developments in medicine had been made which combatted the serious problems of malaria and yellow fever in the area." The statement makes it seem that the US merely picked up where Ferdinand left off, once somebody figured out how to fight malaria and yellow fever. Read the book to get it right - de Lesseps had moved some dirt, but his plan was flawed. The chief impediment to French success was de Lesseps own unassailable optimism. Although neither an engineer nor banker, Ferdinand was CONVINCED that only a sea level canal would do, even though his engineering staff knew this represented an impossible challenge.

Here is an extended quote from McCullough that captures the problem:

"The important point is that de Lesseps, once again, would get exactly what he wanted; he would follow his own lead and they would nod in agreement and go along with him as willingly as his stock-holders had, raising no serious objections about anything, which must be viewed as another testament to his powers of persuasion, rather than any lack of perception on their part. Unmistakably these were men of eminence and ability. ...Yet none was willing, or bold enough perhaps, to challenge de Lesseps' judgment or to take seriously the inevitable cost of a sea- level canal. Later it would be charged that de Lesseps never listened to his engineers. But in fact it was the other way around; it was they who were listening to him" (p. 137)

McCullough quotes the Illustrated London News which observed, "Perhaps no other man ever possessed to such a marvelous extent the power of communicating to other minds the faith and the fervor which animated his own" (p. 137). De Lesseps, in his own words, enjoyed "the privilege of being believed without having to prove what one affirms" (p. 239). McCullough notes, "His was the faith that the mountains could be moved by technology. He had the nonscientific, nontechnical man's faith that science and technology would 'find a way'" (p. 239).

What Ferdinand described as the investment opportunity of a lifetime was eventually demonstrated a fiasco. Those who believed this great optimist and invested in his project incurred staggering loses. They were taken in by a convincing communicator with a positive message and a unbridled confidence in what men can accomplish.

The incessant attempts to raise capital for a flawed project, the astounding amount of time, money, and manpower expended without return, the dogged enthusiasm for what bright minds can achieve, it all sounds eerily familiar to those dwelling in land of the bailout. When the dust settles on the current economic crisis, will we recognize the ghost of de Lesseps?

When men who knew better remained silent before unassailable optimism, when blind faith in the ability of man held sway, when men acted on the strength of another's belief despite their personal misgivings, disaster was waiting in the wings. Do not underestimate the power of men to be convinced of what defies their better judgment. Do not doubt the inevitability of disaster when they do.

Apology Sans Humility: Who's Dismissive Now?

President Obama is winding up his first official foray to Europe. His speech in Strasbourg contained a curious confession: “Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” Watch the video clip to hear his comment in context.

Obama is making an admission intended to bolster Europe's interest in partnering. Being dismissive involves rejecting serious consideration of another's proposals. Derision adds contempt, ridicule and scorn upon those whose suggestions have been dismissed. The President is trying to win points in Europe by declaring that America has hastily brushed aside some of Europe's proposals. At times, their suggestions have been met with American mockery or disdain.

Some might applaud the President for his attempt to patch up relations with Europe and praise him for his humble confession. Is his gesture worthy of such praise? Let's assume for purposes of argument that America is guilty as charged of being dismissive and derisive. Let's also assume that Europe has been nothing but purely reasonable and gracious toward the US. Assume that America has responded to Europe's consistently noble gestures by being churlish cowboys. Let's also assume that nothing Europe proposed warranted a dismissal. Only sensible proposals begging to be honestly debated by reasonable men have come from their lips.

Yes, those are a lot of assumptions, mostly gratuitous. But assume for a moment that they are true. Even in that moment, the President's apology is not a personal confession. He is NOT saying, "I have been dismissive, even derisive." His "admission" is a form of accusing others. He does not mention President Bush by name but clearly this is a way of criticizing a US President and the previous administration to curry the favor of Europe. If Europe despised Bush, then Obama will partner with Europe in disdain.

I cannot overlook the irony of the situation. President Obama is chiding the Bush administration for being dismissive, yet isn't his criticism fueled by a dismissal? Is he not reversing Bush policies simply because they are Bush policies? Alas, I doubt I will hear him say something like this: "There have been times where I have shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive, of President Bush." That apology would get my attention!