I do not watch the view, but apparently Joy Behar made a few off hand comments about how demented home schoolers are and other silly things like that. Her comments can be found about the 7 minute mark and only lasts about 45 seconds. I am not going to bother refuting anything Joy Behar said because it is Joy Behar. If she ever says anything back with argumentation and fact maybe she can be taken seriously. Until then I will avoid her. What was interesting was a blog on the Huffington Post by a liberal homeschooler. This liberal was mad at the comments. What I found interesting was this statement or appeal:

Left-leaning people support the right for men and women to choose marriage, whether they are gay or straight. I support that too. They often support the idea that women's bodies are theirs only and that the government must not make laws dictating their choice to have or not have children. I support that too. So, what's wrong with having the freedom to choose your child's best educational environment?

It struck me that this liberal blogger does not understand why the liberals are against home schooling. Could she not see the underlying issue that made abortion, gay marriage, and anti-home schooling consitent with each other? Could this person not see the fact that “choice” is just one of those buzz words, and not the real issue. Liberals are not for choice. Never have been. They are not promoting an ideology of choice. What is it they promote that unifies these positions (because we can all admit that the "liberal" agenda is public school and not home schooling)?

The answer is these things are all direct attacks on the family. Abortion is an attack on the family. It kills children. Gay marriage is an attack on the family. In order for Gay Marriage to be anything other than an oxymoron, the very definition of Marriage has to be destroyed. Adam and Eve are no longer the example of marriage. Be fruitful and multiply is not even a possibility. One can hardly imagine a more direct attack on families than its re-defining. Is there any value in being a mom or a dad? Not if Gay Marriage is real marriage. Two dads are just as good. Mom brings nothing to table. The same sort of basic level attack on the family is involved in anti-homeschoolers like Joy Behar. Having mom and dad teach their own kids is the worst possible thing because that promotes families. Taking everyone’s children and then having the state dictate what is taught to them is the best thing. Families need not apply. A families values are not to be taught, only the state’s values can be taught. Religion is not allowed in public schools. Spanking is not allowed in public schools. The point of public schools is to indoctrinate children with the beliefs of the state, not the family. Do not forget that public education is one of the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto. Marx by the way also was against marriage. Too much like private property I guess.

The point being the Liberal Left is perfectly consistent in being pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and anti home-school. It is all about attacking the foundations of the family and replacing the family with the state.

Obama's Team of Rivals - Repeating a Mistake

I have grown very tired of hearing everyone refer to Obama’s Team of Rivals. Ignoring for a moment what a complete whitewash of Lincoln, Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book really is, let us not forget one very important fact. A fact that President-Elect Obama seems to have forgotten as well. And sadly it is mostly overlooked in Goodwin’s book as well. Lincoln’s Team of Rivals did not work.

Lincoln is praised for putting his major rivals into one team after he won the Presidency. This included William Seward, Samuel Chase, Simon Cameron, and Edward Bates. There were others on the cabinet, but these were the ones who had contested the election of 1860 and made it a team of rivals. Although it should be noted that Bates was too old to be a political threat, too moderate to cause damage in the Republican ranks, and was an average Attorney General at best. Chase and Cameron were complete disasters. Cameron had to resign after only a year because he was incompetent. He was made the Secretary of War (Defense) and he was awful. So bad that his political career was effectively over. His own party despised him after this. Incompetent is not strong enough of a word. It was not until Edwin Stanton took over the post that the War Department was brought into shape. Stanton was not a rival, and would be considered a normal cabinet pick. Samuel Chase was the Treasury Secretary. Now, it is true that he did his job well. The Treasury Department was not corrupt and he was not incompetent. However, he never ceased being a rival to Lincoln. He tried to use his position to gather forces for a run at the Presidency in 1864. He occasionally undercut Lincoln and often second guessed him. He was made Chief Justice of the United States by Lincoln to rid the party of him and remove him from the cabinet. That is how big a trouble maker Chase had become. Seward as Secretary of State is the only one who turned out. Seward was loyal and had great success after Johnson became President. Seward was attacked the same night Lincoln was shot and much of face was ripped off by the assassin. So, in that manner Seward was great. However, it can hardly be taken as the rule. Seward never made up with Horace Greeley who continued to hound the President and even ran against the Republican Party when Grant was President. Greeley was bitter at how Seward never gave his paper work as Secretary or as Governor of New York. So, while Seward never did anything to undercut Lincoln he did help make trouble for the administration overall.

No matter how this idea came to be planted in Obama’s head, it is a bad one. Maybe people should read the book that Goodwin wrote before following the example of Lincoln.

Young Restless and Reformed - A Puritan Love Affair

I know it has been a while since I commented on the book Young Restless and Reformed, but there is at least one more thing worth discussing. This book is filled with new and interesting ways to be “Reformed”. Whether it be Reformed Baptist, Reformed Independent, Reformed Charismatic, or Reformed Emergent, there is a place for you in this book. There was not a clear tie that binds in my opinion. If so the author did not make it clear enough. However, there was a deep appreciation and love for the Puritans in most of them. Jonathon Edwards is mentioned in every chapter including the Epilogue. Puritanism in general is mentioned in every chapter not counting the Epilogue, and it is mentioned twice as much as Protestantism in general. Obviously Collin Hansen defines Puritanism differently than I do. But, the question remains why the love of the Puritans? I am not saying the Puritans are bad. But, the Heidelberg Catechism is mentioned only twice. The Westminster Confession of faith only six times. Oliver Cromwell is mentioned more than Ulrich Zwingli. The only link between all of these reformed movements is the Puritans.

I have a theory as to why this might be. It is not because of how practical the Puritans might have been or anything good they might have done. It is because the Puritans were not a denomination, and only loosely a movement. Doctrinal distinctive did not exist. You could be a Baptist and a Puritan. You could be a Congregationalist and a Puritan. You could even support charismatic outbreaks and be a Puritan much like Jonathan Edwards did.

Let me expand my point. Edwards, Cromwell, and John Owen were all Congregationalists. John Bunyan was a Baptist. All of these guys are mentioned in the book. One could also add several Presbyterians and Anglicans to this list although they are not mentioned in this book. The point is to be a Puritan is not to be a member of anything other than a broad undefined movement. Church government is unimportant and the sacraments are unimportant. In fact the only thing that seems to be important is a Calvinistic view of salvation and a focus on Christian living. This is exactly what I would say seems to be the glue that connects the Young Restless and Reformed churches and pastors.

This brings me full circle. Is this really Reformed? Is it so important to meet the world where it is that we leave behind so many things, or as the Bible puts it ‘the meat’ of God’s Word? I am not saying that all of the churches in this book are doing that. By no means. I am simply saying that trying to make a connection between these many varied churches and theologies is a mistake. And if we want to put such an emphasis on the Puritans, we need to remember their shortcomings. After all the Puritans failed both in England and in America. An important fact to remember.

Stealing Elections

Al Franken will be the next Senator from Minnesota. However, he lost the election. Let us just fact facts, Republicans like to supress minority votes, and Democrats love recounts because they cheat. So it is with Minnesota.

Read this article about what is going on out here in the forgotten country. Remember as you do that the Star Tribune might actually be the most politically liberal paper in America. It is easily top five. If even they can figure out that 100 ballots in the trunk of a election official's car all for Franken is probably not legitimate, then we ought to all be worried that they are being counted.

The Death of Chivalry

It will soon be official, chivalry will be dead. Chivalry of course is that old medieval idea that knights had a responsibility to behave in a certain manner, to comport themselves according to virtue and honor, most especially as it regarded women.

I mention this because it is a tangible thing that can be seen in today’s culture. Chivalry has been dying for some time, probably because Christianity has been waning in this country for sometime. After all it is hard to carry oneself with virtue and honor when the One who defines what such things are is removed from the equation. Chivalry was always connected with Christianity. Just read some King Arthur and the Knights of the Table Round stories (note on the page the code of the Knights with regards to ladies). Even those legends have a search for the Holy Grail, which is found by Sir. Galahad because of his piety. That is what made him the Greatest Knight ever, according to the books of course. Chivalry is to be linked with Christianity. Remove the Christianity and the code falls to pieces. Even in Canterbury Tales, the greatest book ever,Chaucer gives us a story or more about Chivalry (the Knight’s Tale and the Wife of Bath at least), which also show us this Christian duty toward women.

That Chivalry is ailing is not hard to tell. When was the last time you stood up for a lady every time she entered the room, left a table, or tipped your hat to one on the street. Me neither. But, it was not dead. Chivalry still had a pulse. But, President-elect Obama has plans to pull its life support. He will put women on the front lines and register them for the draft. All in the name of equality. Now I believe that men and women are ontologically equal, but they are not economically the same. In other words, we are all humans and have the same rights that cannot be denied, but we have different jobs and that cannot be denied either. One can pretend that men do not have natural instincts to protect females, one can pretend that males will react the same to a woman being tortured, and one can even pretend that our enemies will treat female prisoners the same as they treat male ones, but we must never forget that all of that is just pretend.

The reason women should not be in combat or even the military is that they are valued so highly, not because they are thought incompetent or unable. I Peter speaks of women as the "weaker vessel". Now I do not believe that this means women are physically weaker, although some do. I believe that this phrase is referring to a vessel that is delicate and honored and to be protected. A Ming Vase might be a good example. It is something that you do not let the kids play with. It is something that you put in a place of honor and safety. So it is with women. They are to be honored highly, protected with all that we have. Putting them on the front lines and drafting them against the will to war is about as opposite from that idea as one can get. Sort of like using that Ming Vase for a spittoon.

So if this happens, and I assume it will, we can bury Chivalry. Let us pray that the Lord will resurrect it, and that it will be the last Christian virtue we let die in the country.

Election Post-mortem

I have to say that I underestimated the polls (at least Rasmussen), and I over estimated the American public’s ability to recognize socialism as an attack on personal wealth, but most importantly an attack on Christianity. That is a post for another day. Rasmussen has a nice feature where you can see state-by-state how their polls did. It seems the Republican out performed by a small amount most of the time, but a few key places like Nevada he under performed and that cost him. Just to justify my distrust of polls Rasmussen did not fare as well in their Senate polls. They out right missed Oregon and Alaska. Having followed the site I can tell you as well that they are being a little deceptive about Minnesota. Their FINAL poll may have looked that way, but they had Franken on top for most of the year. They also had the special election in Mississippi as a seat in jeopardy until their final poll too. I doubt opinion turned that much.

I have to say that I am not half as depressed as most of the Republicans I know or even the conservatives I know. I did not vote for McCain, and he probably still thinks I am an agent of intolerance. The question has been raised earlier about the fate of Conservatism in this country. Some think it dead. I do not. After all Obama promised tax cuts, which he will not deliver, but he still ran as cutting the budget, cutting spending, and cutting taxes. He also ran on less foreign intervention, which is fundamentally conservative. The question is really whether or not the Republican Party stays conservative. I stated earlier during the primaries that it was a battle for the soul of the Republican Party. I defined the Reagan coalition as Paleo-Conservatism, Libertarianism, Theo-Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives. With President Bush the Neo-Cons were in the driver seat, the Theo-Cons sat in the passenger seat and the Paleo-Cons were in the back seat and the Libertarians had been kicked to the curb. McCain represented more of the same with less influence for the Theo-Cons. Other candidates represented other arrangements and the Neo-Cons won the day in the primaries. Well, when McCain feared the Paleo-Cons would get out of the car themselves and leave McCain short on votes he picked Sarah Palin who appealed to Paleo-Cons and Theo-Cons. However, it made many Neo-Cons abandon the car leaving McCain without a driver. There was a late mass exodus of especially those Neo-Cons who wanted to remain in power and with popularity in the press. Frum, Powell, and McClellan come to mind as well as some columnists who are women (reinforcing my belief that the biggest obstacle to a woman in the White House is women). This leads to the struggle now of which group will take over the party.

My bet is the Neo-Cons will take the party by blaming Palin for the loss. But, this will not kill true Conservatism (Paleo) in America. Conservatives always get used and kicked to the curb because their nature is one that thinks political power is bad. Less government = good. The side effect of this is that political parties whose goal is control of government end up getting rid of the conservatives. Do not forget that the Conservatives were on the outs with President Jefferson depsite electing him. They were on the outs with President Jackson despite electing him. They were on the outs with the Whig Congress when President Tyler was in office. They were on the outs with the Democratic Party in 1860 (you could define them either as the state’s rights group or the Constitutional Unionists of Bell). They were on the outs in the Democratic Party during their high years of the great depression despite being the reason the Dems always had a majority, and eventually they left the party. Their exodus gave the Republicans the White House with the Nixon Southern Stragtegy and the Reagan years, and finally the majority by 1994, but they were forsaken in 2000 and they have since been removed and made fun of by the party leaders. The point is that Conservatives never go away. Not only do they never go away they also always seem to play a fundamental part in the governing of America. Whether it be the Revolution of 1800 or the Jacksonian Revolution or the Reagan Revolution it is always led by conservatives.

As for President-elect Obama, I will pray for him. My duties to the government don’t really change just because the top man does. Obama is going to be a liberal, but then is our current President, so there is not that big a change. There is a big debate about how Obama will govern, which highlights the pathetic nature of the media that they ask that fundamentally important question AFTER the election. Will he be the socialist that he truly is or will he play pragmatism so that he can get re-elected? I think he will end up in on the left. You do not win by the margins he won by to sit on your hands. But, I think he will take it slowly at first. I think he will back out of his promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act that would override state laws about abortion. I do think he will try to push the things he thinks will not cause serious division. Expect Cap and Trade to be put into effect and other climate change initiatives. The one thing we can count on because Obama has always done it, are moves to silence dissent and consolidate power. Thus, I think two things he will tackle early are the Card Check Law, which will increase Democratic fund raising power, and the Fairness Doctrine, which will hurt all of America by making us slaves to the worthless media and might actually kill radio. Expect both of those to come through quickly. The Fairness Doctrine makes me angry because it is simply repugnant to the idea of democracy, liberty, and America as a whole. However, I expect it to pass without much trouble.

There is no doubt that there is much work to be done, but I think it can be done. However, I think the work needs to be done primarily in the churches. Things have to be taken seriously and taught again. A whole generation of people has grown up and they do not understand the fundamental importance of some issues. They see abortion and homosexuality as political issues rather than moral issues. A generation has grown up thinking that socialism is a good idea, and thinks it can actually fit into a Christian worldview if they even care about trying. A generation has grown up and does not see the problem with feeling entitled to things and truly believes personal responsibility is a bad thing. For all the talk and debate about how so many people do not believe the plain teaching of creation in Genesis 1 or the teachings about the role of women in places like Ephesians 5 or the doctrine of Predestination, which is so clearly laid out in Romans 9, the verses that may be the most ignored in the whole bible today by “evangelicals” are the ones found in Proverbs about how to live. We as the church need to fix this problem and the rest will work itself out. Although in writing this list it makes me think that maybe we need to take back education as well and start to take it seriously again.

If this happens, then the politics will work itself out.

To Altar Call or not to Altar Call

Kevin Johnson defends the idea of an altar call on his new blog: Prophezei, which has replaced Reformed Catholicism. He gives several reasons for including the idea of an altar call.

His first is that worship has always been innovative. He gives a few examples such as the Book of Common Prayer, which I find completely unconvincing. I would like for him to trot out a few more examples if he has them. It is my opinion that Reformed worship looks a lot like worship of days gone by, and dare I say it, the worship of NT church. That claim will probably draw some criticism, but it is a claim I am still willing to make until proven otherwise. I do not see the role innovation has played in history.

The one example he does break out that deserves mention is the Great Awakening. There was an innovation in the worship service during that time that serves as the basis for the modern “altar call”. They preached what they called the “terrors of the law” in those days, and that grew into the New Methods which actually used the “anxious bench” and later the “altar call” perfected by Moody and others. I am an Old Sider at heart. I am against the Great Awakening. I do not view it like most do within Presbyterian circles. I think the theology of Edwards has led to as many problems as it has anything else, and that George Whitfield began a horrible trend of Evangelists without a home church, undermined local ministers, and his theology was muddled at best. His sermons were often out right heretical. Referencing the Great Awakening to me hurts his case more than anything else.

His second point is that Christianity is no longer the dominant player in American society and culture. I agree with this, and this point needs a bit more examination. The point made by Kevin Johnson here is that we can no longer assume a familiarity with Christianity and that using old creeds and modes of worship do not connect with modern man. He goes on to state the forming the worship service for the believer rules out unbelievers, evangelism, and the chance to grow the church; thus, we cannot model the worship service to appeal only to those already in the community of believers. I grant his premise about the culture and he makes a solid point about the need for true evangelism. My rebuttal is that the worship service does not have to be the answer for evangelism. He is right that it ought to be accessible, although we doubtless disagree about the accessibility of Reformed worship as it is today. However, I do think that the church is not doing enough to reach out to the unbeliever and is not reaching people where they are in their lives. Churches need to change quite a bit in this area, but changing the worship service is not the answer. If you look back on the history of the church one can see the church reaching out in a myraid of ways other than the worship service. How often do churches have active deaconal help and pass it to someone in the community who is not a member of the church? How often do churches start schools and educate the young of believers and non believers alike? This was the common method of the church in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. I would advocate reaching out to those who have no history of Christianity, but I do not think that the worship service is the place to do that. It should not be exclusionary, but it should not serve as the main outreach.

The point about preaching and asking people to make a decision for Christ, I think is a different discussion from the one about the altar call that began the post. Asking men to repent and make a decision for Christ is not the same as having an invitation to come forward during Just As I Am. The post referenced the minor prophets as pressuring men to make a decision. To that I could add Joshua telling the people to choose this day or Elijah asking how long they would hesitate between two opinions. That practice is right and should be done, especially when the text demands it. However, ending the sermon with a time for people to come forward is not that. I believe the worship service has a flow, and build up if you will. The heart of the worship service is to be the Word of God and prayer. That is the heart of the service. I am against the altar call for the same sort of reason that I am against weekly communion. It supplants the preached word as the main part of the service. In Southern Baptist churches it is not going to far to say that the altar call is there sacrament. It is the main point and the high point of their service. It then also becomes something that people can put their trust in. I went forward at an altar call and I made a decision. Did they? Billy Graham usually thinks that about 10% of the people that came forward actually followed through on their decisions and went to church. Are we changing the service for the hopes of reaching 10%, if we preach as well as Billy Graham?

I share the concern that churches today (not just Reformed and Presbyterian) do not practice evangelism and the church is receding because we are not sharing the gospel. However, I think it means we are failing outside of the church walls and on Monday through Saturday, not necessarily on Sunday. This is a mounting problem, and one that I pray the church as a whole can address.

Last Chance to Vote for a Third Party

Remember to vote today. And this is my last chance to encourage people to vote for a third party candidate. If you really want change, you cannot expect it from one of the two major parties. How many times do they have to fail before this becomes obvious. I have to admit that the rhetoric against voting for a 3rd Party has become increasing hostile. I have argued in the past that voting for a 3rd Party is the best way to change a national party, but some still insist that working within the bankrupt, corrupt political parties is the way to go despite never having any proof. No one is ever bad enough to make them dissert their party because next time the party will not take their views for granted, and they will not count their vote for a sub-par candidate as an endorsement of his flaws.
The latest example of this mindset is American Vision. American Vision is founded by a Theonomist, Gary DeMar. The whole point of American Vision is to promote a Christian Worldview and even to work for an openly Christian government. He has recently denounced votes for 3rd party small government and openly Christian candidates in favor of working within a big government party who avows no real religions belief and does not even attend church regularly. The mind numbing contradiction in such positions makes my head hurt.
So in closing if you like John McCain go vote for John McCain. If you don’t like him, there are other options. If you like Barak Obama vote Barak Obama, but if you don’t like him and want someone a little less socialist and less liberal, the Green Party does have a candidate and Ralph Nader is running is independent.

Most importantly go vote. There is really no good reason not to vote.

So much happened in the past few days in sports it is a must respond kind of post for me.

First, the Cincinnati Bengals won a game. Yes, it is the first. The season went south the minute Carson Palmer went down. Actually, it was done the minute they resigned Chris Henry. Now our Harvard quarterback finally pulled a win out of his hat. At least we did not lose them all.

The University of Tennessee finally fired Philip Fullmer. All I can say is this is at least 10 years too late. Philip Fulmer has a good record over all with over 150 wins, but the SEC was not always as dominate as it is now. Fulmer enjoyed feasting on the weak SEC, but cannot handle the new SEC where Georgia is good, the coach he cannot beat ever is at South Carolina, and in addition to the yearly loss to Florida, former arch-nemesis Alabama is good again. It is simply too much for Fulmer. He did win a national title in 1998, but if you cannot win a national title in the four years that Peyton Manning is your quarterback then you should be fired. That is all that needs to be said about him.

Finally, I am completely justified by the departure of Allen Iverson from the Nuggets. I predicted the Nuggets would stink with AI, and I was right. They did not improve at all during his time in Denver and in fact, it can be argued they got worse. AI cannot play defense, and is a ball hog. That does not work well in a team game. The addition of Chauncey Billups ought to improve both aspects that AI could not. It also lets J.R. Smith shoot the ball and play more. He is a better outside shooter and is a better fit for the team than AI. Billups is a big game player and can make clutch shots down the stretch. The Nuggets will be releasing McDyess, which is good as well. What they do with Cheikh Samb is anyone’s guess, but does having a 7 footer on your team ever hurt? No. Look for the Nuggets to make the playoffs and challenge to get out of the first round. That depends on how long it takes for the team to come together (which will affect who they play in the first round). If it does not take to long and the Nuggets can pull off a 5th seed or even a 6th, they might could sneak out of the first round.