Debate: Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson at Westminster

This is an excellent debate, very cordial, I was particularly impressed with Christopher Hitchens, though I completely disagree with him and his arguements. I expected Hitchens to be more like Sam Harris, just an angry blow-hard, however Hitchens is clearly a very smart man. Yet again testifying to the words of the apostle: "For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth." (1 Cor 1:26)

The debate starts here, part 1 is just intro, the rest can be found on youtube:

On The Weight of The Incarnation

"Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." (Heb 2:17)

Another Christmas is here and gone, presents strewn about the house, cookie crumbs decorate the mouth corners of all, and the seasonal afternoon nap develops into a way of life. It truly is easy to lose sight of the heart of what it is we are celebrating amidst all the commotion of family visits, dinners, children playing, purchases and exchanges etc.

We can think quaintly of the baby in the manger, with the sheep and animals gently nuzzeling about Him. But it is there in Bethlehem we see humility and exaltation joined in One, glory and shame, the servant and King of all, this in one Person, Jesus Christ.

He was made like us in every way, subjected Himself to the same futility, cried like any other infant, played with other children, skinned His knees, as He grew He learned a trade and earned a living. In two ways He was not like us, He is indeed God and He lived a life without sin. All of this to save a people to Himself.

He didn't have to do it. Justice does not demand this humility and mercy on His part. The wonderous mystery of His choice to come as a Man and lovingly redeem a people lies in the unloveliness of those He came to redeem. He did not look upon us and see something that called for mercy (else it would no longer be mercy). Rather, in all of our ugliness toward one another and rejecting of God's Lordship He came to save.

We all to easily confess to our sinfulness without meditating on the hideousness of it, perhaps because it is too heavy to bear. "Christ died for the ungodly" (5:6) What does it mean to be "ungodly" other than to be opposed to God and all He calls good?

Such were all of us, yet He came nonetheless. He did not do this primarily to show us the life to live, for we could never live it. However, we see in Christ the invisible God. God is not some aloof invisible man distant from His creation as some would say. Our sin has seperated us from Him yet in His mercy He revealed Himself by becoming one of us. In Christ that seperation beween man and God no longer exists and those who are in Him may boldy approach the throne of grace.

These are sweet truths, worthy of meditation more than once a year.

Merry Christmas.

Revisiting Schaeffer's "Final Apologetic"

In Francis Scaheffer's work "The Mark of the Christian" the timeless balance of truth and love, doctrinal integrity and interpersonal authenticity is struck. All too often we fall prey to one extreme or another in our evangelism, apologetics, preaching and relationships with one another. We tend to emphasize one of Scripture's mandates at the expense of another.

Followers of Christ who highly esteem the Word and the propositional truths contained in the Bible often can be guilty of bludgeoning others with those truths. Any disagreement is met with harsh outbursts where the person of the objector is attacked and villified. When it is between believers and non-believers, as far as I can tell this is no more evident than within the supposed "Culture War".

Believer to Unbeliever Lack of Love

In the made up "Culture War" moral miscreants and unbelievers are "the enemy" who must be destroyed. This is evidenced by a recent "outrage" of a homosexual nativity scene with 2 Marys and 2 Josephs played by live people (they must be working in shifts). At any rate the group has claimed it is not their intention to offend Christian but they just want an alternative because they "feel left out" of Christmas.

Is this blasphemous?
Yes.

Indecent?
Yes.

Tasteless?
Indeed.

Meant to offend Christians?
Probably.

But how do we react as Christians? Do we go on the radio and rant about these people and their degeneracy? Go stand across the street from their Nativity scene with signs reminding them that indeed homosexuality is immoral and hell is real? Well that's what is expected, and frankly that's probably what these people want; a bunch of angry offended Christians foaming at the mouth. This is ugliness and is often all the world sees of Christians.

So how should we react? By practically loving them. It can be as simple as bringing them hot coffee and warm cookies and gently saying "I completely disagree with what you are doing but I want you to know I love you." If they have any sense and they see you aren't there to pick a fight (which is probably what they want) they just might feel a little thing we call guilt in response to your returning good for evil.

I believe we are called to do just that, we are not called to protest, lobby, yell and scream we are called to love our neighbor and seek to save the lost. Schaeffer wrote of this stating:

"All men are our neighbors, and we are to love them as ourselves. We are to do this on the basis of creation, even if they are not redeemed, for all men have value because they are made in the image of God. Therefore, they are to be loved even at great cost."

Believer to Believer Compromise of Love

In the believer to believer conflicts and disagreements much ugliness and lack of love can also be displayed. Church splits often reflect this ugliness where the actual matter of the division gets lost in personal malicious attacks.

I know for myself the above is my own tendency, I love the truths of God inestimably and I hate to see them trampled down as a common thing. Bunyan's depition of "Mr. Valiant for truth" is one of my own heart. So, when I see or hear the center attacked I get angry at the person. My first thoughts in doctinal controversies generally are not how can I in trying to win this person intellectually to a "more perfect" (Acts 18:26) understanding of God show them that I love them unconditionally? My thoughts are generally thoughts of how to zing the moron. This is sin, and a theology of glory.

On the opposite end of the spectrum we have the tendency to compromise truth and doctrine for relationships. This is poignently seen in the incessant cries for "Unity!" in the church. These cries are valid Biblically (Eph 4:1-10) and are not to be dismissed out of hand. However, often the cry for "Unity!" is synonymous with a cry of "Compromise!". This has been the bane of liberal theologians exhortations for Church unity, it is a unity that is simply skin deep.

Again, as I have said my personal tendency is toward truth at the expense of brotherly kindness, so my sense of the the unity=compromise is rather acute. More than acute my theological spidey sense more often than not manifests in outright synicism at any cry for "Unity!" Because, like the dwarves in the C.S. Lewis' "Last Battle" I simply do not want to be taken in.

Living Christ's Commands

This is why I have found Francis Schaeffer's life and contribution to be of immense value. Schaeffer not only talked about the balance between truth and interpersonal relationships he lived it. His exhortation though simple enough is so easy to neglect. We are not to destroy the image of God in the person in our proclamation and defense of the truth, nor are we on the other hand to compromise the truth in order to have relationship with persons.

This is a simple message. However, in order to really live this balance I believe we absolutely must be intentional in seeking this balance. Schaeffer's own life manifested this balance as he opened his home at L'Abri to travelers and seekers, loved them in very practical manner all the while speaking the truth of Christ to them. This is "Speaking the truth in love" (Eph 4).

I honestly think that this is the most important aspect of "Schaeffer's apologetic" as without the diligent practice of loving the whole person our apologetic efforts are being undercut by our lack of love for the individual. This is in part why I have backed off a bit from the internet debate culture, so much of debate on blogs is simply bickering in an extremely insulting manner. Individuals are far more rude over the medium of the internet than in person, myself included.

It really goes back to the call to love our neighbor as ourselves which Schaeffer has emphasized.
While it is true that people may believe and say things that are ridiculous as well as blasphemous, yet for the sake of the image of God in the person they are to be reprooved and corrected while we do not seek to destroy them as persons through insult and a desire for ill will. We must honestly be checking our own hearts as often we will find ourselves desiring people to fail because of some disagreement we may have with them.

Don't be quick to think "I don't do that!" if we search our hearts we will undoubtedly see this dark smudge. All the more lamentable is that we more often than not harbor such ill will toward our fellow Christian with whom we may disagree doctrinally. We may actually feel a degree of glad smugness upon hearing of their failure. This is ugly, for in holding this attitude we have destroyed our brother in our hearts under the banner of "Truth".

In his book "The Mark of the Christian" Schaeffer argues strongly based upon John 13:33-35 that world will know that Christ is risen and is Lord by the changed lives of Christians manifesting itself in love. Schaeffer shows that unless we are truly loving each other WITHIN our differences the world has no reason to believe the Christian message is any different than all the other messages. It is this Mark of the Christian that distinguishes Christianity as authentic truth, for we can disagree even strongly yet love and fellowship with equal strength within our disagreements. Schaeffer writes:

"Before a watching world, an observable love in the midst of difference will show a difference between Christian's differences and other men's differences. The world may not understand what the Christians are disagreeing about, but they will very quickly understand the difference of our differences in an open and observable love on a practical level.

That is different. Can you see why Jesus said this was the thing that would arrest the attention of the world? You cannot expect the world to understand doctrinal differences, espescially in our day when the existence of truth and absolutes are considered unthinkable even as concepts."

Everyone will disagree and argue, the difference is that Christians are called to love within their disagreements and this is what will authenticate the message to the watching world. That is what our Lord Jesus Christ said. This love toward one another as fellow Christians is what will give a distinction to our message, and what Christ said validates that we ourselves are Christians.

I close on that note by quoting Schaeffer on the final apologetic:

"Yet, unless true Christians show observable love to each other, Christ says the world can not be expected to listen, even when we give proper answers. Let us be careful, indeed, to spend a lifetime studying to give honest answers. So it is well to spend time learning to answer the questions of those who are about us. But we must never forget that the final apologetic which Jesus gives is the observable love of true Christians for true Christians."

Happy Reformation Day

With each passing year I seem to appreciate the Reformation, and the men who fought for it, all the more. In this year in particular I in studying church history have come to see just how wicked the Roman church really was and even is (not the people in it per se). Also, the freedoms we have, and our form of government have their roots planted directly in the fertile soil of the Reformation based streams of thought.

We owe an inestimable debt to our Reformers who fought, and in many cases died, that we may worship Christ, as our conscience (hopefully guided by Scripture) dictates.

I will expand this further in coming posts.

Ford vs. Chevy, Coke vs. Pepsi, Left vs. Right...What side are YOU on?

Upon coming to a more Libertarian/Constitutional view of government I believe I have been afforded a bit of objectivity I previously did not have in looking at the current political camps. Being a Constitutionalist I am an outsider to the rhetoric of the two parties, so I am beginning to see the spin a bit more clearly whereas in times past I wouldn't have viewed it as spin at all.

It astounds me to no end each time I tune in to talk radio on my commutes how, no matter what the issue, no matter what the facts are, it is somehow the Democrats who are at fault. It always comes back to the fight between the two parties, that explains the bail out, the mortgage crises, and the failures in Iraq.

If Sarah Palin in an interview when asked what news papers she reads and consequently can't name a single one, it is because the liberals are being biased. It always comes back to this paradigm, no matter what the issue. It is the wild joker.

In talking about election fraud the radio hosts go on and on about how the Democrats love to rig elections and if a Republican ever attempted such a dastardly stunt he would fry. I find such talk laughable considering the question marks over the integrity of out two previous presidential elections both going to Bush. One University of Florida student learned at the end of a taser the price for publicly raising this issue to John Kerry.

Try to see the left vs. right split as on par with the fights which I saw the "hicks" at my high school would get into over whether Ford trucks were better than Chevy. They actually formed two packs of rival gangs sporting opposing T-shirts shouting insults at each others vehicles. This all seemed rather ridiculous to me as an outside observer because they were the same trucks, one just had a "Ford" logo the other "Chevy".

Another comparable analogy would be the difference between Coke and Pepsi. There is indeed a difference, one is in a blue can the other red. The tastes are slightly different as well, but when you get down to it they are both cola.

Now think about this, you are at a summer party and there is an ice chest equally full of Coke cans, Pepsi cans and Walgreen's "Cola" cans, which do you think is most likely to run out first? Why?

Transitioning from cars and soda, the point I want to get at is that what the whole left right paradigm is intended to do is to cancel or nullify any grassroots movement and absorb people into the fake fight. The two party mentality is clearly ingrained in our political speak...we speak of alternative parties as "third party" or we toss out shallow cliches such as "Ya gatta vote fer the leser of two evils."

All such phrases presuppose Democrat and Republican hegemonic dominance.

So, if people don't like the way things are going, like the war for example, well then we will vote Democrat because a Republican started it. Yet, the Democrats vote to continue to war. Or, say we want abortions to stop, so we vote Republican, yet the Republicans choose to not vote on legislation that would overturn Roe v. Wade through Congress.

It's a false choice.

This becomes more clear with the banker bail out scam. The bailout scam is the greatest step toward socialism in the history of the United States since the creation of the Federal Reserve and the income tax in 1913. This bill however had the current President and both of the establishment party presidential candidates as supporters. In the meantime the overwhelming majority of the public did not want this bill passed.

Every now and then we see the two establishment banker and corporate parties collude and pass the most fascist pieces of legislation. These are the moments the mask comes off and the two parties are exposed for what they are, henchmen or hench-women for an elite.

There are a few exceptions like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul to name a couple.

Upon his inauguration Bill Clinton named one individual as being instrumental in shaping him and setting him on course to be president, his name was professor Carrol Quigley. Carrol Quigley claimed to have had a degree of inside knowledge as to who this elite were and felt that they should be public (Quigly had no objection to their ruling).

In his book "Tragedy and Hope" Quigley spoke of the two party system as a cleverly crafted paradigm of this elite, Quigley writes:

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy." (T & H p.1247-1248)

Simply put the left v. right paradigm is a false dichotomy, as there is no real choice, either way the elite get their man in.

So, with that said, it is the job of the talk radio jocks, the Bill Orielly's, the Sean Hannity's, the Bill Maher's and Chris Matthews' of the world to fight and yell and scream and get the public to believe there is a difference and by so doing prop up the illusion of choice. That is their job.

Here's a video with visual graphics that explains how the false left v. right paradigm works:

Root of the Financial Crises

! Updated at End!
The new film "Zeitgeist Addendum" gives an excellent explanation of how the fiat money system and our currency (Federal Reserve Notes) are by their very nature the heart of the economic problems we are facing. I certainly do not agree with all that the Zeitgeist film puts forward, I particularly disagree with their solution (a techno-Marxist Utopia) and their view of Christianity, however, the film is spot on with it's information on the monetary system/banker scam. It is simply brilliant in it's information:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6:


There is more to the film, I have posted what I thought to contain the best information.

Update:
To be more clear with what it is and why I disagree with some of the film I will briefly write. I strongly disagree with the solution (hence I did not post it) that the film maker offers. I disagree with this politically as it is a form of what I would call a techno-Marxism, which of course on the surface seems appealing yet in it's naivete overlooks the sinfulness of man and the opportunity for corruption.

Also, as a Christian I reject the solution as only Christ is the solution to the fallen condition we are in, not some Utopian ideal. We need to be changed from the inside out and made into new creatures not from the outside in with a slick lazy society of comfort. Christ and His regenerating work and ultimate glorification of His own is our hope, not a system of government.

We should however not expect anything other than this from the world, as they without God are cursed to be worldly minded and seek solutions in that same fashion.

Ron Paul Endorses Chuck Baldwin

Here is Ron Paul's endorsement of Chuck Baldwin for president in the 2008 election:

New Alliance - By Dr. Ron Paul

Friends - please read this new and important piece by Dr. Paul.

The press conference at the National Press Club had a precise purpose. It was to expose, to as many people as possible, the gross deception of our presidential election process. It is controlled by the powerful elite to make sure that neither candidate of the two major parties will challenge the status quo. There is no real choice between the two major parties and their nominees, only the rhetoric varies. The amazingly long campaign is designed to make sure the real issues are ignored. The quotes I used at the press conference from insider Carroll Quigley and the League of Women voters strongly support this contention.

Calling together candidates from the liberal, conservative, libertarian and progressive constituencies, who are all opposed to this rigged process, was designed to alert the American people to the uselessness of continuing to support a process that a claims that one’s only choice is to choose the lesser of two evils and reject a principle vote that might challenge the status quo as a wasted vote.

In both political education and organization, coalitions are worthwhile and necessary to have an impact. “Talking to the choir” alone achieves little. I have always approached political and economic education with a “missionary” zeal by inviting any group in on issues we agree upon.

This opens the door to legitimate discourse with the hope of winning new converts to the cause of liberty. This strategy led to the press conference with the four candidates agreeing to the four principles we believe are crucial in challenging the political system that has evolved over many years in this country.

This unique press conference, despite the surprising, late complication from the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, hopefully will prove to be historically significant.

This does not mean that I expect to get Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney to become libertarians, nor do they expect me to change my mind on the issues on which we disagree. In the meantime, why can’t we be friends, respectful of each other, and fight the corrupt process from which we suffer, and at the same time champion the four issues that we all agree upon which the two major candidates won’t address?

Many practical benefits can come from this unique alliance. Our cause is liberty —freedom is popular and is the banner that brings people together. Since authoritarianism divides, we always have the edge in an intellectual fight. Once it’s realized that the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity are best achieved with our views, I’m convinced we win by working with others. Those who don’t want to collaborate are insecure with their own beliefs.

In the past two years at the many rallies where I talked and shook hands with literally thousands of people, I frequently asked them what brought them to our campaign. There were many answers: the Constitution, my consistency, views on the Federal Reserve, the war, and civil liberties. The crowds were overwhelmingly made up of young people.

Oftentimes I welcomed the diverse groups that came, mentioning that the crowd was made up of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Liberals and Progressives with each group applauding. Even jokingly, I recognized the “anarchists” and that, too, was met with some applause. In conversations, many admitted to having been Democrats and members of the Green Party and supporters of Ralph Nader, yet they came to agree with us on all the issues once the entire philosophy was understood. That’s progress.

Principled people are not shy in participating with others and will defend their beliefs on their merits. Liberals and progressives are willing to align themselves with us on the key issues of peace, civil liberties, debt and the Federal Reserve. That’s exciting and very encouraging, and it means we are making progress. The big challenge, however, is taking on the establishment, and the process that is so well entrenched. But we can’t beat the entrenched elite without the alliance of all those who have been disenfranchised.

Ironically the most difficult group to recruit has been the evangelicals who supported McCain and his pro-war positions. They have been convinced that they are obligated to initiate preventive war in the Middle East for theological reasons. Fortunately, this is a minority of the Christian community, but our doors remain open to all despite this type of challenge. The point is, new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left than from those conservatives who have been convinced that God has instructed us to militarize the Middle East.

Although we were on the receiving end of ridicule in the reporting of the press conference, I personally was quite satisfied with the results. True revolutions are not won in a week, a month, or even a year. They take time. But we are making progress, and the momentum remains and is picking up. The Campaign for Liberty is alive and well, and its growth and influence will continue. Obviously the press conference could have been even more successful without the last-minute change of heart by the Libertarian Party candidate by not participating. He stated that his support for the four points remains firm. His real reason for not coming, nor letting me know until forty minutes before the press conference started, is unknown to me. To say the least, I was shocked and disappointed.

Yet in the long run, this last-minute change in plans will prove to be of little importance. I’m convinced that problems like this always seem bigger at the moment, yet things usually work out in the end. Recovering from the mistakes and shortcomings of all that we do in this effort is not difficult if the message is right and our efforts are determined. And I’m convinced they are. That’s what will determine our long-term success, not the shortcomings of any one person.
The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November.

It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.

In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York. This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats. We need more states to permit this option. This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.