Wait a Minute…

Here is a picture of a church sign I saw today, but something about it doesn’t seem quite right…

Get Out the Vote?

Howard Stern’s radio show is despicable.  I don’t listen to it or endorse it in any way.  However, even those on the fringe of society sometimes make very good points.  Stern recently did so by going into Harlem and conducting a little political experiment:

Now this is why I am not a fan of voter registration drives.  My thinking is that if you are not responsible enough to take the initiative to register yourself to vote, then you are probably not responsible enough to get informed on what candidates actually stand for, and you will end up voting for the way a candidate looks or the letter beside his name (and even then you will have no idea why you prefer one letter over the other, except for the fact that everyone else in your community prefers it for unknown reasons as well).  I have no problem with low voter turnout.  People who don’t have a clue about the issues involved in a campaign do our country no favor when they turn out in droves to pool their collective ignorance in an election.

By the way, this also applies to voter registration drives at churches.  I tell my congregation not that they have a responsibility as Christian citizens to vote.  I tell them that they have a responsibility as Christian citizens to cast an informed vote; if they are not going to get informed, then they have shirked responsibility and would be better off not voting.  As with all structures, systems, and institutions, democracy is only as good as the people who make it work.

An Obama Presidency = More Abortions, No Question

Justin Taylor has written a helpful piece explaining Obama’s commitment to the “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA).  Obama’s support for it is so strong that he told Planned Parenthood that the first thing he would do as President would be to sign it into law.  FOCA is basically a federal law that imposes on all states a uniform policy on abortion that goes beyond even Roe v. Wade.  It would sweep away all existing laws on the books in all fifty states that impose any kind restrictions on the practice of abortion.

As Taylor points out, in the state of Maryland a measure similar to FOCA has been in place since 1991.  Now, guess what has happened in Maryland since 1991: abortions have gone up, in spite of the fact that they have decreased nationally.  This is what an Obama presidency will do for the whole nation.  Current restrictions that cohere with Roe v. Wade will be lifted, and the number of unborn children killed in the womb will, without question, go up. 

This is why I don’t buy Obama’s empty rhetoric about this issue.  Last night in the debate he made the most vacuous statement imaginable: “This is a profoundly moral issue.”  Okay…what do you mean by that?  Do you mean there is a clear moral line to be drawn between what is right and what is wrong?  Do you mean that there is a transcendent standard above us that places on us a moral responsibility to act in one way rather than another?  That’s normally what I mean when I call something “moral.”  It appears that what Obama means is that this is a deeply personal issue that every woman should decide for herself.  But then what has he done with the word “moral”?  He has made it meaningless. 

If I said, “Child molestation is a profoundly moral issue,” I definitely would NOT mean by that that child molestation is deeply personal and every person should decide on his own whether he or she wants to practice it.  All I see from Barack Obama on the question of abortion is profound moral confusion, combined with a rabid commitment to leftist public policies.  On the one hand, the question is “above his pay grade,” as he told Rick Warren.  On the other hand, so far as public policy is concerned, he digs in his heels and will not budge one inch from his commitment to allowing a doctor to crush a baby’s skull.  And one day, he will answer to God for this bloodshed.  I hope, for his sake, for America’s sake, and for the sake of millions more defenseless children yet to be conceived, that an Obama presidency never becomes reality.

Must Read

Robert George is a professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University.  A few years ago he came to Southern Seminary and delivered a series of lectures on human life, ethics, and the legal issues involved in those questions.  After I heard his first lecture, I became convinced that he is one of the world’s leading intellectuals, and that is not something that I would say lightly.  I have heard many speakers in my lifetime, many of whom were intelligent (and some who were not), but Dr. George is in a class that very few reach.  What he says deserves to be heard and considered.

Some have argued that Barack Obama is the best choice for pro-life voters.  Dr. George has written an essay exposing that argument as completely unfounded.  Anyone who calls himself or herself “pro-life” must read this and ponder these issues carefully. 

HT: Justin Taylor

A Few Political Observations

(Okay, I realize that my blogging pace has not slowed, in spite of my stated intention to slow it; maybe after the election I will be able to follow through with that goal).

(1) It seems that few voters care about the nature of Barack Obama’s associations with Bill Ayers and other anti-American figures.  I think that is extremely unfortunate.  I’m not accusing Obama of anything here.  What I am saying is that no matter what the DOW is doing or what kind of “kitchen table” issues we as voters are focusing on, we had better darn well care whether the person asking for our votes has close ties to an unrepentant terrorist or not.  It is okay to say that the charge is unfounded.  It is not okay to say that the charge is insignificant.  When fear sets in, nations have been known to flock to charismatic figures who were not worthy of their trust.  It simply will not do to dismiss the question about Obama’s past associations, because they speak directly to the issue of his trustworthiness as a leader.  Whatever the truth is about this question, we should seek it passionately, not dismiss it because the DOW plunged last week and we’re so wrapped up in our checkbooks that any fresh face and stimulating voice will do.

(2) Two Republican candidates that I support have been running ads on television here in Louisville, and I have to say that my confidence in the Republican party has been shaken as I have watched them.  Both Senator Mitch McConnell and former Representative Anne Northup have been campaigning on principles that are antithetical to conservative values.  Both have cited their records of bringing pork spending to Louisville.  And now McConnell is going after his opponent, Bruce Lunsford, because Lunsford made his money “the Wall Street way.”  Since when did Republicans start playing the class envy card?  We are supposed to be a party that limits government spending, the cuts out pork barrel spending, and that refuses to punish the wealthy for their success.  Do Mitch McConell and Anne Northup believe that conservatism is not a winning political philosophy? 

(3) How much different would the situation be in this election if the mainstream media truly were unbiased in their reporting?  Let’s suppose, hypothetically, that all the media outlets that claim to be fair and objective actually were.  That means ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, The New York Times, Newsweek, Time, and a host of other publications actually gave fair coverage to both candidates.  And on the other side, let’s say Fox News truly was fair and balanced, as it claims to be (excluding commentators who make no secret about their own perspectives).  I think this would be a totally different race.  McCain would be up by double digits; I have little doubt about that.  It is amazing how much power our biased news sources have to shape thought and perception in this country.  It is a testimony to our intellectual laziness.

“Passing Through”

My friend Craig has a great post on the importance of connecting to places and people no matter what stage of life you may be in.  I have been a student in higher education for almost nine years now, and that means that for the last nine years I have been in successive stages of “passing through,” always looking forward to what’s coming up next.  As I near the end of my Ph.D. and begin the process of looking for a job, my tendency is to get so wrapped up in the future that I begin to miss the present.  Even worse, I begin to get so wrapped up in myself and in my own goals that I begin to miss the wonderful reality of otherness: other people, the external world, things that were here long before me and will be here long after I’m gone.  And it is simply impossible for me to have deep and abiding joy when I develop that kind of egotistical tunnel vision.

I have read two passages recently that have jolted me out of this narrow, “passing through” mindset.  One is from John Piper’s Don’t Waste Your Life:

The really wonderful moments of joy in this world are not the moments of self-satisfaction, but self-forgetfulness.  Standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon and contemplating your own greatness is pathological.  At such moments we are made for a magnificent joy that comes from outside ourselves.  And each of these rare and precious moments in life–beside the Canyon, before the Alps, under the stars–is an echo of a far greater excellence, namely, the glory of God.

The other passage is from my friend Craig:

Of course there is nothing wrong with just passing through. There have been nomads from the beginning of time. In fact, the tendency to roam may, as a survival instinct, be more wired into our DNA than the tendency to stay. But I’ve often felt that the desire of some to always be looking to the next thing can be more of a refusal to admit that one day they will die.

I think about death a lot.  But I have never thought about it in this particular way.  What better cure for graduate student tunnel vision than the sober reality that my lifeless body will one day go under the ground, and I will stand before God to give an account of my life to him! 

Thank you, Dr. Piper, and thank you, Craig.  I needed to hear that.

(Read Craig’s post here.)

Review of “Religulous”

Dinesh D’Souza reviews Bill Maher’s documentary, Religulous (a film that pokes fun at religion and religious people), and while he’s at it, he challenges Maher to an intellectual duel.

What Is Happening to Us?

“So this is how liberty dies…with thundrous applause.”–Padme Skywalker, Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

I find the following video incredibly disturbing (yes, there is a brief interlude meant to make a salient point, but even without that, the video is disturbing enough):

I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but what I see unfolding before us is unlike anything that I, or anyone in America, has ever seen.  The kind of blind, unthinking loyalty that Barack Obama has inspired has, to my knowledge, never happened in the history of American politics.  Brett Joshpe has been thinking exactly what I have been thinking.

Add to this the extreme left’s penchant for silencing criticism, and you have a recipe for a brave new America.  I am by no means saying that all Obama supporters are brainwashed cultists.  Nor am I saying that Obama’s own motivation is to become a Kool-Aid distributor.  Let’s hope not.

Obama’s Tax Plan

I have heard over and over that Barack Obama plans to cut taxes for 95% of Americans.  First of all, that is impossible.  The number of Americans who actually pay taxes is not anywhere close to 95%.  You cannot cut taxes for people who do not pay taxes.  Second, why has McCain not pushed Obama on the lunacy of this kind of tax proposal? 

Obama plans to raise taxes on the wealthiest of Americans, including businesses.  Whenever this happens, the middle class always end up paying for it.  When wealthy Americans have less money to spend, they spend less money.  When they spend less money, the economy slows.  When the economy slows, middle class people feel the crunch.  Businesses lay off workers.  Unemployment rises.

When businesses see their taxes go up, they compensate for the losses.  They do so by raising their prices and passing on the increased costs to those who purchase their goods or services.  The overwhelming majority of these consumers are middle class people.  It’s like Fred Thompson said (tongue-in-cheek) at the convention (not quoting verbatim): “They’re not going to raise your taxes.  Don’t worry.  They’re just going to raise taxes on businesses.  So unless you get a paycheck from a business, or unless you buy something from a business, like groceries, clothing, or gasoline, don’t worry.  This tax hike won’t affect you at all.” 

So, the middle class worker who just got laid off because business slowed down due to the wealthiest of Americans spending less money and investing less in the economy will find that he now has to pay more for groceries, clothing, and gasoline because President Obama thought it was a good idea to raise taxes on the wealthy.  Why can’t everybody get a tax cut?  Wouldn’t that benefit everybody?  Yes, it would benefit even the government.  Lower taxes stimulate economic growth, which creates more jobs and leads to higher tax revenues.  The Laffer Curve demonstrates that in most situations, raising taxes does not bring in more money for the federal budget.  Failing to understand this, Democrats have trafficked in class warfare politics for decades, repeating the same old cliches year after year about the wealthy not paying their fair share in hopes of stirring up middle class resentment against those who have succeeded.  A country that punishes wealth should not be surprised when it loses it. 

Why hasn’t McCain made this argument?  It seems so simple, almost self-evident to me.  But most voters don’t understand economics (thank you, public schools!), and they need to be taught these kinds of elementary truths.  We need an articulate candidate who can fill the role of teacher to the American public.  We need another Reagan.  Unfortunately, Reagans don’t come along very often.

The Righteousness of God and the Cross

The following is a sermon I preached on Romans 3:21-26 on Sunday, September 28th, 2008.

The French poet Charles Baudelaire once said, “If there is a God, he is the devil.” He said this in regard to the massive evil, suffering, and injustice that prevails all around us. In a world where the strong oppress the weak, where the poor have little or no recourse to pursue justice, where the innocent suffer because of the sins of others, how can we claim that there is an almighty, righteous God ruling over it all?

Dennis Prager recently gave a good answer to this question on his radio show. I love listening to talk radio, and I happened to hear Prager the other night talking about our current economic woes. He was talking about the fact that these corporate executives who have run their companies into the ground by making reckless decisions are making off with what are known as “golden parachutes,” severance packages of millions, or even hundreds of millions of dollars. And all of this happens while investors, who have played by the rules, are taking big losses, and honest employees are losing their jobs. This is not right, Prager said. Often times those who break the rules will prosper in this world, and those who live by the rules will have to pay the difference. And so injustice prevails. But then Prager went on to say that this is precisely why we must believe that there is a God and that he has a coming Day of Judgment when all the wrongs will be accounted for, when the scales will be balanced, and when justice will finally prevail. Every human heart longs for justice. We don’t want to believe that we live in a universe that is ultimately without any standards of right and wrong. But in order to believe that, we must put our hope for justice in God and in the day of reckoning to come.

Dennis Prager is right, but he is still missing something of massive importance. You see, Dennis Prager is Jewish. He does not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. And so while he rightly recognizes that a Day of Judgment is coming, he does not rightly understand what that will mean for him personally. God will demand not only that the corrupt executives answer for their sins, he will also demand that Dennis Prager answer for his sins. And for that matter, he will demand that you and I answer as well. So, in light of the unrighteousness that prevails now, we long for God’s righteousness to be revealed in the coming Day of Judgment. But that puts us in a predicament: if justice is coming, then it is coming to me too. How can I stand before the judgment of God? The Scripture makes it abundantly clear that no one is righteous, that we are corrupt to the core, rebels against God who have stirred up his anger against us. Dennis Prager longs for justice to come, but how will he himself escape when it does? The answer for him and for you and for me is that we will only escape if we cling to the cross of Christ.

The central phrase of Paul’s letter to the Romans is “the righteousness of God.” In 1:17 he says specifically that in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed. Here in these verses he mentions the righteousness of God four times, two at the beginning of the passage and two at the end. What Paul tells us is that the righteousness of God has been revealed in the cross of Christ, and it has been revealed in two ways. On the one hand, it has been revealed as a gracious gift given to sinners whereby they are declared righteous before him. On the other hand, it has been revealed as judgment against sin, thereby vindicating God’s own character and showing that he truly is righteous, that the scales will be balanced, and that there is ultimately a difference between right and wrong. These two aspects of the revelation of God’s righteousness answer the two deep longings of our hearts: the longing for righteousness to prevail in the end, and the desire to escape the judgment of God that we rightly deserve when it does. What a wonder is the cross, that by it both God and sinners are justified!

Notice first
I. The Righteousness of God as a Gift to Sinners, 21-24.
This passage begins with two glorious words: “But now.” This signals a transition in Paul’s argument as well as a transition in history. Paul launched into an argument about the wrath of God directed against all of humanity beginning in 1:18, which reads, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” Paul goes on for three chapters about the wrath of God, arguing that it is directed not only against pagan Gentiles, but against the Jews as well. Collectively, all of mankind is under the power of sin and, therefore, under God’s wrath. Broadly speaking, you could say that everything up to this point has been bad news. And then Paul says, “But now,” and he talks about the cross of Christ, and everything that follows through the rest of the book is good news: good news about a right standing with God, about hope in the midst of suffering, triumph over sin and death, and the glorious hope of resurrection. This paragraph signals the turning point, the hinge of the whole letter. And the “now” signifies not only a turn in Paul’s argument, but a turn in history as well. It signifies that something major has happened, so that the time in which we live is a new time when things have changed. And what Paul means is that the death and resurrection of Christ has happened. Christ is the dividing point of history. It is in him that the great transition is made.

The rest of the verse fleshes out this transition: “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the Law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it.” Throughout his argument thus far, one of Paul’s major points has been that the Law, the whole covenant structure made with Israel through Moses, has not kept Israel from sin or from the wrath of God. It has been powerless to defeat sin. And that’s why Paul says in 3:19-20: “Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” In light of the law’s powerlessness to put anyone right with God, God has revealed his righteousness apart from the law. What is the “righteousness of God” in this verse and in the following verse? It is a gift of right standing with God. We have no righteousness before God on our own, and that’s why we are under his wrath. But in the gospel the righteousness that comes from God as a gift to sinners is revealed, and this righteousness is apart from the Law, apart from anything we could do to earn it. But even though it is apart from the Law, it is attested by the Law. When Paul says, “although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it,” he is referring to the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures. The Law covenant that God made with Israel always pointed beyond itself to a time when God would act in a decisive way to deal with sin and renew his people. So this righteousness of God that is now revealed is revealed apart from the Law, but that does not mean that God has changed his strategy. The Law itself has always pointed in this direction.

And then verses 22-23 expand: “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” This righteousness, then, comes through faith. By “faith” here Paul doesn’t mean just any faith. He means a specific kind of faith: “faith in Jesus Christ,” or as some translations say, “the faith of Jesus Christ.” It is a faith that comes from what Christ has done on the cross and that is directed to him. It is not a general belief in God or a vague hope that things will be okay, much less a blind leap into a fantasy world that is detached from reality. It is a specific, directed trust in Jesus Christ as the crucified and risen Savior. Those who believe receive the gift of righteousness from God. More than that, Paul says, all who believe receive the gift of righteousness. And when Paul says “all,” his particular focus is on both Jews and Gentiles. As he says, there is no distinction in this regard between them, for all have sinned. All descend from Adam. All have their origin in the same lump of fallen humanity. And, therefore, all have fallen short of the original glory in which Adam was created. Whoever you are and whatever your background, you are a sinner, and the promise of the gospel is that you may be made right with God through faith in Jesus Christ.

And this is what Paul goes on to explain in verse 24: “and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” We don’t see it in English, but in the Greek the word “justified” is related to the word “righteousness.” To be justified is to be declared righteous, to have a right legal standing with God. And here Paul says that justification comes to us not based on what we do but as a gift. It comes as a gift because it comes from the grace of God. And the means by which we have it from God’s grace is through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. “Redemption” refers to liberation by payment of a price, a term that was often used in the slave market to refer to the purchase of a slave’s liberation. God has paid that price with the life of his own Son, out of the abundance of his grace, and that means that our right standing with him comes to us as a gift, not as a reward for what we have done.

There was a time when Martin Luther hated that phrase “the righteousness of God” as he read it in the book of Romans. In his medieval theology classes, he had been taught that the phrase referred to the righteousness by which God condemns sinners. And Martin Luther knew that he was a sinner. So he could not understand how the gospel could be good news if it meant that God would condemn him for his sins. But then he had a breakthrough. After much study and meditation, he came to realize that the righteousness of God is not the righteousness by which he stood to be condemned but rather the righteousness by which he stood to be declared righteous. In other words, the phrase refers to the gift of righteousness that comes from God and puts sinners in right standing with him. Writing later about this experience, Luther said, “Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates.” And I proclaim to you that paradise is open through the righteousness of God given to us as a gift in the gospel, because of the cross of Christ. Trust in Christ; trust in what he has done on the cross, and you will be counted righteous now and forever in the sight of God

But another aspect of the righteousness of God is revealed in the cross, and that is, second,
II. The Righteousness of God as Judgment against Sin, 25-26.
We are not so eager to talk about the judgment of God, but Scripture is packed full of references to it. The truth is, without just judgment against sin, God would not be righteous. He himself would become complicit in evil; he would therefore be unholy, unjust, and ultimately unworthy of our praise, worship, and adoration. And that conclusion is simply intolerable. It is precisely because God is so good that we must acknowledge his holy wrath against sin.

And what we find in these two remarkable verses is that God’s righteous character is demonstrated through the cross. Having just mentioned Jesus Christ, Paul says in verse 25: “whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.” First we need to address that complicated word “propitiation,” or as some translations say, “sacrifice of atonement.” What does this mean? In the culture of the day, the word signified some kind of offering that makes the gods favorable. You see, the gods of the pagan world were a bit bad-tempered, but it was believed that they had authority over different spheres of the world and, therefore, had the power to make life good or bad for us. So, if you were scheduled to go on a sea voyage, you would offer some kind of sacrifice to Neptune, the god of the sea, in order to make sure that he gave you a safe trip. Or, if you were scheduled to give a speech, you might offer a sacrifice to Hermes, the god of communication. Or, if you wanted abundant crops or an abundance of children, you would offer sacrifices to the appropriate gods. The sacrifice offered is a propitiation, because it makes the god propitious, or favorable, to you. Now I don’t want you to get the idea that the one true God is anything like the gods of the pagan world. He is not capricious and bad-tempered, subject to our control if we only bribe him with the right gifts. But he is full of wrath against our sin, wrath that is his holy response to our wickedness, and unless his wrath turned away from us, we are doomed. Therefore, God must be propitiated. But how? Ah, this is where the difference between the one true God and the false pagan gods is most striking. Notice the one performing the action in verse 25: it is God himself! God put forward his own Son as a propitiation through his bloody death on the cross. God has taken the initiative to satisfy his own wrath against sin by directing it to Christ instead of us. And so, God has not simply swept his wrath aside in all this, which would compromise his justice and holiness. No, he has fully poured out his wrath upon sin, but he has done so in a way that has shielded us from that horrible plight. In his love he sent his Son to take our place.

Paul says that God did this in order to demonstrate “his righteousness because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.” In other words, God’s righteousness, which here indicates his holy judgment against sin, had been called into question so long as he had not dealt with sin in a full and decisive way. And until the cross, he hadn’t. He had “passed over” sins, which in some cases meant allowing sinful rebels to go their own way, and in others it meant actually forgiving sins of Old Testament believers. But what about his justice? How can the justice of God be upheld in light of this passing over of sin? Only if, at some point, he publicly deals with sin in a decisive manner. And this he has done in the cross by delivering up his Son as a substitute for sinners.

In 1998, Karla Faye Tucker became the first woman executed in the state of Texas since 1863. She had been convicted of murder, an act that included repeatedly hacking away at a woman with a pickaxe. Her execution made headlines because she had appealed for clemency, claiming that her life had been transformed by faith in Jesus Christ. Clemency was not granted. But assuming that her conversion to Christ was real, then we must conclude that Karla Faye Tucker stood before God and heard him say, “Not guilty.” What would her victims think of that? What would their families think? If it were any human court, they would no doubt conclude that injustice had prevailed and that the judge was corrupt. And yet, Paul’s point here in Romans 3:25-26 is precisely that this judge who acquits the guilty, who justifies the ungodly, who calls the filthy clean, is completely righteous. God’s righteousness cannot be questioned in the least because it has already been demonstrated on the cross. Judgment was already handed out to Karla Faye Tucker—and to you and to me—on the cross, where her Savior took it in her place. Justice has prevailed. God’s righteousness has been revealed.

Paul then closes in verse 26: “It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” God’s righteousness has been demonstrated now, at this point in history, through the cross of Christ, so that he is both “just” and the “justifier.” His character is fully vindicated even as he counts righteous those who are clearly guilty before him.

Unrighteousness is evident all around us. This creates a longing within us for a coming day of reckoning, a day when the wicked will have to answer for their sins. But unrighteousness also prevails within us, whether we realize it or not. And that creates a longing within us for forgiveness, for some way to escape the judgment of God that will certainly come. So the very Day of Judgment that we long for is the Day that will sweep us away with all the rest who have offended God by their sins. Is there any hope for God to reveal his righteousness and yet for us to escape his judgment?

Yes, there is hope. There is hope in the cross of Christ. For it is in the cross that the righteousness of God is revealed, both as a gift of right standing with God for sinners and as a vindication of God’s own righteous character. Take hold of the cross and of the Christ who hung there for you, and don’t ever let go.