Hebrews 4:12

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Friday, August 28, 2009

The Cult Of Self Esteem

It would seem that there is nothing that we can do in this present age to escape the constant barrage of self esteem hype. We are told that the problem with our children is that they do not have enough self esteem, and that if we want them to be successful in life, we must do all we can to build their self esteem. I take the position here today that this is utter nonsense. I would say that self esteem is very natural to fallen humanity, and is something that we should endeavor to fight against, rather than foster.

Take my own children for instance, I'm not saying that they are bad kids, but I'm pretty familiar with them. It is not hard in the least to get them to tell you all about all the things that they want, at any given time. They always want something, and things are just never fair, as far as they are concerned. To them, unfair means, things didn't go how I wanted them to go. Now, lest you think I'm simply raising a couple of monsters, let me tell you, the case of my children is pretty mild by comparison to what I see when I look around me. Part of that is because I do not buy into the lies that the Cult of Self Esteem has been pushing on our culture, and instead try to give my kids a healthy and realistic self image, and understanding of their place in the world.

Don't get me wrong here, it's not just kids either. It doesn't seem to matter if you go to the store, or to work, or, very sadly, even to Church, what you hear most often from most people is "me me me me me." Again, don't misunderstand, we are in our lives, and so we can't very well act as if we aren't, and so there is no choice but to talk about ourselves and use words like "I" and "me" as we go throughout the day, but there is a way that this is done that is very self centered. Believe it or not, you can talk about yourself without making it sound like you are the center of the universe.

The fact of the matter is that our prisons are full of people with very high self esteem. Our schools are full of kids who think that they should pass on to the next grade simply because they are just as good as everyone else, no matter what their grades say. Our institutes of higher learning are full of young adults who think that they deserve a minimum of a B if they show up for class every day, no matter what their grades are like (no, you deserve a minimum of an F, you have to work to get it higher than that). Our workplaces are full of people who think that they deserve a raise just because the honor the company by being willing to work there. Our Country is full of people who think they deserve to be fed and cared for by the rest of us, just because they are there, and it doesn't matter if they simply refuse to work, doggone it, they deserve it! And our communities are full of people who think that every kid who plays a sport should get a trophy, just so their self esteem isn't damaged. As we move about in everyday life we are constantly bombarded with a never-ending stream of people who think so highly of themselves that it is absolutely staggering.

No, there is no need to work at building self esteem in people, on the contrary, we need to work to make sure that we are not full of ourselves, and not making too much of ourselves. High self esteem comes easy, and is highly destructive, an appropriate view takes work, but is well worth it. Sometimes my daughter will do something that she's not supposed to do, and I'll have to discipline her for it, and she always says, "But Daddy, I wasn't trying to disobey!" To which I always respond, "Honey, you don't have to try to disobey, that is really easy to do, it's obedience that takes work."

And this isn't just my opinion, the Apostle Paul cautions us in Romans 12:3 "For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned." (ESV) and in Philippians 2:3 he says, "Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves." (ESV)

Regardless of what we see on TV, or what so many experts want to tell us, the fact is that we don't need high self esteem, in fact, we need low self esteem, humility and a servants heart. These are the things that will allow us to live good, godly lives. High self esteem will just make us selfish jerks, which is really easy to be, in fact, you might say it comes naturally, being a humble servant takes work.

Monday, August 24, 2009

My Guilt In The Present World

Regular readers of my blog are well aware of my passion for politics and morals, and truth and good, solid reasoning and arguments. Sadly, you may be less aware of my passion for the Lord Jesus Christ and for His Kingdom. Perhaps that is because that passion has been either lacking or misdirected.

I have even argued that, since all things are connected, and all truth is God's truth, that getting into politics and social issues is fighting for God's truth and the Kingdom, but I have come to see that this approach only applies in a very marginal sense.

I can so clearly see that only true and correctly understood Conservative Politics are compatible with the Bible, and and Gospel of Christ, and so I fought for the Conservative Politics. I can so clearly see how moral and social issues are so clearly delineated in the Bible, and so I fought for those moral and social issues. I could go on, but let it suffice to say that while I was so willing to engage in all of the peripheral issues, and associated battles, I have been guilty of ignoring the most central issue.

While I'm not saying that my positions on these issues were wrong, I am saying that my focus on these issues was very wrong indeed. I have come to see that Jesus did not come into this world to bring about Political or Social change. He came to bring Salvation, and He has commissioned us to take the message of that Salvation out into the world.

I am well prepared to argue over Politics, and can well explain why correctly understood and applied Conservatism is the moral choice, while Liberalism is inherently immoral. I am able to argue and debate over issues of cloning and abortion and same-sex marriage without ever bringing up a singe verse of Scripture, or I can argue it directly from Scripture. I am well able to define and defend the proper role of Government, both from a philosophical and Biblical position. On these, and a host of other issues, I have spent much time, energy and thought, but if I have ignored the central issue, then it was all for nothing.

We could win all of the political victories imaginable. We could have Abortion outlawed. We could defend marriage and see that the special title of marriage is reserved for one man and one woman. We could see an end put to Embryonic Stem Cell Research. We could do many more things, and win many more victories, but if we do not advance the cause of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it is all for nothing.

Christians should well be concerned with feeding the hungry, housing the poor, caring for the sick, and helping all who are in need, and we should not seek the Government to do these things for us. But, while we need to be about all of these things, if we do not share the Gospel of Christ, it is all for naught. If we feed all the hungry of the World with food, and shelter them all in houses, and bring them all high quality medical care, and on down the list, only to watch them enter Eternity apart from God, and be outcast to Hell, then we have hated, rather than loved them.

In the past few weeks I have felt my passion for Politics and such wain. I have tried to reclaim it a time or two, thinking that I was losing grip on what was most important, but I have come to realize that I have lost nothing. My passion was not growing weak, it was being replaced!

While I'll still vote, and still take the time to make sure I understand the issues so that I may vote well, I will not ignore the Wonder and Majesty of Christ and His Gospel and His Kingdom in favor arguing over what I now see amount to the trivialities of this present age. May I stand for Christ, spread the Gospel message, and see the World change as the fire of a passion for Him and His Kingdom rages through the Church and around the World.

May I stand with the Prophet Isaiah, and when the Lord asks, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" (Isa 6:8a) may I say with Isaiah, "Here am I! Send me." (Isa 6:8b)

Friday, August 21, 2009

Something To Think About From John Piper


Desiring God Blog



The Tornado, the Lutherans, and Homosexuality

Posted: 19 Aug 2009 10:12 PM PDT

(Author: John Piper)

I saw the fast-moving, misshapen, unusually-wide funnel over downtown Minneapolis from Seven Corners. I said to Kevin Dau, "That looks serious."

It was. Serious in more ways than one. A friend who drove down to see the damage wrote,

On a day when no severe weather was predicted or expected...a tornado forms, baffling the weather experts—most saying they've never seen anything like it. It happens right in the city. The city: Minneapolis.

The tornado happens on a Wednesday...during the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America's national convention in the Minneapolis Convention Center. The convention is using Central Lutheran across the street as its church. The church has set up tents around it's building for this purpose.

According to the ELCA's printed convention schedule, at 2 PM on Wednesday, August 19, the 5th session of the convention was to begin. The main item of the session: "Consideration: Proposed Social Statement on Human Sexuality." The issue is whether practicing homosexuality is a behavior that should disqualify a person from the pastoral ministry.

The eyewitness of the damage continues:

This curious tornado touches down just south of downtown and follows 35W straight towards the city center. It crosses I94. It is now downtown.

The time: 2PM.

The first buildings on the downtown side of I94 are the Minneapolis Convention Center and Central Lutheran. The tornado severely damages the convention center roof, shreds the tents, breaks off the steeple of Central Lutheran, splits what's left of the steeple in two...and then lifts.

Central Lutheran's broken steeple

Let me venture an interpretation of this Providence with some biblical warrant.

1. The unrepentant practice of homosexual behavior (like other sins) will exclude a person from the kingdom of God.

The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

2. The church has always embraced those who forsake sexual sin but who still struggle with homosexual desires, rejoicing with them that all our fallen, sinful, disordered lives (all of us, no exceptions) are forgiven if we turn to Christ in faith.

Such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:11)

3. Therefore, official church pronouncements that condone the very sins that keep people out of the kingdom of God, are evil. They dishonor God, contradict Scripture, and implicitly promote damnation where salvation is freely offered.

4. Jesus Christ controls the wind, including all tornados.

Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him? (Mark 4:41)

5. When asked about a seemingly random calamity near Jerusalem where 18 people were killed, Jesus answered in general terms—an answer that would cover calamities in Minneapolis, Taiwan, or Baghdad. God's message is repent, because none of us will otherwise escape God's judgment.

Jesus: "Those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:4-5)

6. Conclusion: The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction. Reaffirm the great Lutheran heritage of allegiance to the truth and authority of Scripture. Turn back from distorting the grace of God into sensuality. Rejoice in the pardon of the cross of Christ and its power to transform left and right wing sinners.

.


Friday, August 14, 2009

Jehovah's Witnesses At My Door

Jehovah’s Witnesses at My Door

They backed off. They bailed out. They ran away. Will you?
When I mentioned the deity of Christ, the person in the shadows spoke up for the first time. I wasn't prepared for what she said. .

By: Gregory Koukl

related articles:
Links on Opposing Viewpoints

Ground Rules for Talking to Mormons

related radio broadcast:
May 17,2009

SHARE THIS

It was Tuesday mid-morning and I'd been studying when I heard the knock on my door. When I opened it, two middle-aged women smiled at me pleasantly, bundles of apocalyptic literature in hand. Would I like to see their material?

I mentioned there were two, but only the one in front--the one who'd knocked--had been speaking. The second stood quietly in the back, watching. Jehovah's Witnesses go out in pairs, an experienced Witness and a new disciple. The neophyte makes the initial contact, while the mentor waits protectively in the background, ready for a flanking maneuver should her young cadet get into trouble.

I knew I had very little time to make an impact. For one, I was preparing for a lecture and was running against the clock. Still, I didn't want to send my visitors away empty-handed. Second, door-to-door types usually have little time for anyone who is biblically literate. Once I showed my hand I knew they'd disappear quickly, looking for an easier mark.

I quickly gathered my thoughts and assembled a response.

"I'm a Christian pastor," I said, directing my comments to the younger convert, the one less influenced by the Watchtower organization and more open to another viewpoint. "In fact, I'm studying theology right now." I held up the tome I'd been reading, Turretin's 18th century Institutes of Eclentic Theology.

"It's clear we have some differences, including the vital issue of the identity of Jesus. I believe what John teaches in John 1:3, that Jesus is the uncreated Creator. This makes Him God."

Mention of the deity of Christ was all that was needed to bring the rear guard into action. The person in the shadows spoke up for the first time. I honestly wasn't prepared for her response.

"You're entitled to your opinion and we're entitled to ours," was all she said. No question, no challenge, no theological rejoinder. This was a dismissal, not a response. She turned on her heels and started for the next house--young cadet in tow--in search of more vulnerable game.

I cast about for something to say that might slow their retreat. "You're also entitled to be wrong in your opinion," I said gently, but directly. I admit it wasn't a devastating rejoinder, but it was all I could think of. "Clearly we both can't be right, even though we're both entitled to our opinions." I was hoping for some kind of reaction, some kind of engagement, but my challenge had no effect.

As they faded from the doorway I fired my final salvo, vainly hoping for a response. "Obviously, you're not interested in hearing any other point of view than your own." Then they were gone.

In the moments that followed a host of questions flooded my mind. Did I use the right tactic? Would a different approach have been more effective? Did anything I say leave a good impression? Did I plant even a seed of doubt in the initiate's mind?

I'll probably never know the answer to those questions, but the encounter was still educational. Notice a couple of things about this short exchange.

First, what did these two missionaries do when they encountered someone who was biblically literate? What was their first response when I mentioned my background, then gave a thumbnail sketch of an argument striking right at the heart of their most cherished doctrine?

They backed off. They bailed out. They ran away.

What's wrong with this picture? If you were convinced that the medicine you held in your hand would save the life of a dying patient, would you turn on your heels, letting them perish just because they didn't like the taste of the treatment?

Isn't that a strange response for a door-to-door evangelist, out to save the world, but taking flight at the first sign of disagreement?

First, they weren't very confident of their message. Why should I take a single moment to consider an alleged message from God that the messenger himself wouldn't lift one finger to defend? Why should I respect the cause of a soldier who retreats at the first sign of resistance?

Second, they weren't that interested in my salvation. If someone's genuinely interested in rescuing lost souls, their first impulse would be to find out what I believed and then correct my errant theology. Isn't that why they go door to door, to witness to the lost, to give them the truth about Jehovah God and invite them to join the Watchtower organization?

But they didn't even listen to my point of view, much less try to correct my error. Do you know what that tells me? They didn't care much about my eternal destiny.

Third, they don't take the issue of truth very seriously. Religious evangelism is a persuasive enterprise; the evangelist is trying to change people's minds. He thinks his view is true and other views are false. He also thinks the difference matters. Follow the truth, you win; follow a lie, you lose--big time. A commitment to truth (as opposed to a commitment to an organization) means an openness to refining one's own views, increasing the accuracy in understanding, constantly searching for more precision in thinking.

A challenger could always turn out to be a blessing in disguise, an ally instead of an enemy. An evangelist who's convinced of his view would want to hear the very best arguments against it. One of two things is going to happen.

He may discover that some objections to his view are good ones. The rebuttal helps him make adjustments and corrections in his thinking, refining his knowledge of the truth. Or it may turn out he's on solid ground after all. Developing answers to the toughest arguments against him strengthens both his witness and his own confidence in his religion.

But my visitors didn't wait to hear my thoughts to inform their own beliefs, so they might know the truth more accurately. They didn't pause to hear the reasons I reject the Watchtower's authority, so they might try to refute me and gain confidence in their own view.

One final thought occurred to me. Sometimes an evangelist is a Jeremiah, a lone voice faithfully proclaiming a message in the face of firmly entrenched unbelief. It will never be heeded, but it's still declared faithfully, an example of God gracious offer even to the recalcitrant, those who will never budge.

But the two Witnesses didn't offer me a terse word of warning, even though they felt that my mind was made up. There was no faithful proclamation of their truth, just a rapid retreat.

Which brings me to a final question. If these door-to-door evangelists weren't interested in getting me saved, or correcting my wrong notions about God, or refining their knowledge of the truth, or even being faithful to speak the truth in the face of opposition, then why were they knocking on my door? If they really believed that religious belief amounted to no more than individual opinion, what's the point of changing people's minds?

There must have been some reason these ladies were out every week, risking discomfort, derision and ridicule. What was it? It wasn't out of faithfulness to God and His message, or they wouldn't have dismissed me so readily. It was out of faithfulness to an organization, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

These missionaries had done their time. They'd knocked on my door and offered me literature. Putting in the hours is what keeps them in "grace." Saving souls is not really the object. Neither is knowing the truth, nor deepening their faith, nor being faithful to proclaim the message.

That's the danger of promoting an organization rather than being faithful to God's truth. Everything goes topsy-turvy. The means becomes the end and the life goes out of the whole enterprise.

This holds some lessons for every Christian who takes his or her faith seriously: Don't be too quick to back down from opposition.

First, as intelligent or aggressive as your opponent might seem, he still is, in fact, perishing without Christ. You don't know what internal struggles he's facing that don't show through his confident or gruff exterior. You don't know but that God will use your simple, gracious, but direct challenge to his beliefs and begin to melt his rebellious heart.

Second, you might learn something. Maybe you're the one that's mistaken, at least in part. If your bad arguments are refuted, ditch them. The case for Christianity is too good to be compromised by bad defenses.

But maybe you're not mistaken. If so, you want to be certain your faith can stand up to the most rigorous analysis. If someone has an objection, you don't have to answer it right then. Make sure you understand the objection clearly, then do some work on it. This will strengthen your own confidence.

Finally, sometimes it's right to simply yet graciously tell the truth about God and man, even when man is not interested. There may be a day when your clear, confident words will come back to him. If it's not on this side of the grave, it will be in front of the throne, as evidence of God making the options clear even in the face of disinterest.

Don't retreat in the face of the simplest opposition. Too much is at stake. Be the kind of soldier that instills respect even in the enemy because of your courage under fire.

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1995 Gregory Koukl

For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Health Care Fact Check, Mr. President



Dear America,

President Obama told the American people in his weekend address he wanted to "start dispelling the outlandish rumors" about the Democrats' risky health care experiment.

I couldn't agree more with the President.

There is no place for outlandish rumor or outrageous rhetoric in the debate for the affordable and accessible health care reform we all want.

Below are some facts that will help you counter the dishonest rhetoric Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and liberal special interest groups are disseminating in their attempt to silence dissent:

  • Rhetoric: President Obama Promises Americans Can Keep Their Current Health Care Coverage. "You know, the interesting thing is we've actually been very clear on what we want. I've said I want to make sure if you have health care you are going to keep it..." (PBS's "The Newshour With Jim Lehrer," 7/20/09)
    • FACT: Analysis Shows Over 88 Million People To Lose Current Insurance Under Government Health Care Takeover. "Under current law, there will be about 158.1 million people who are covered under an employer plan as workers, dependents or early retirees in 2011. If the act were fully implemented in that year, about 88.1 million workers would shift from private employer insurance to the public plan." (John Shelis, Vice President, Lewin Group, "Analysis Of The July 15 Draft Of The American Affordable Health Choices Act Of 2009," 7/17/09)
  • Rhetoric: President Obama Pledges Americans Can Keep Their Doctor. "If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won't have to do a thing. You keep your plan. You keep your doctor...We're not going to mess with it." (President Barack Obama, Remarks At White House Press Conference, The White House, 6/23/09)
    • FACT: Mayo Clinic Says Government-Run Health Care Will Force Doctors To Drop Patients. '[L]awmakers are on track to approve across-the-board federal payment reductions of $155 billion over 10 years for hospitals ... Mayo and similar health systems object to the sweeping cuts. 'Across-the-board cuts will be harmful to everyone and we think it is particularly bad to penalize the high-value organizations,' said Jeff Korsmo, executive director of the Mayo Clinic Health Policy Center. 'We will have to violate our values in order to stay in business and reduce our access to government patients.'" (Phil Galewitz, "'Model' Health Systems Press Case For Medicare Fix In Reform," Kaiser Health News, 7/20/09)
  • Rhetoric: President Obama Promises No Additional Taxes On Middle Class. "What I've said is, and I have stuck to this point, I don't want to see additional tax burdens on people making $250,000 a year or less." (NBC's "Today Show," 7/21/09)
    • FACT: Democrats' Plan Imposes 2.5% Tax On Uninsured Individuals. "The penalty assessed on people who would be subject to the mandate but did not obtain insurance would equal 2.5 percent of the difference between their adjusted gross income (modified to include tax-exempt interest and certain other sources of income) and the tax filing threshold ..." (Douglas W. Elmendorf, "Preliminary Analysis Of The Insurance Coverage Specifications Provided By The House Tri-Committee Group," Letter To Chairman Rangel, 7/17/09)

The Republicans want an honest and open debate about how to reform health care, but it is the Democrats who do not want to have a legitimate discussion on the issues. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their liberal special interest cronies are resorting to calling concerned citizens who have questions about their health care schemes "astroturf," "un-American," and even "political terrorists."

One White House aide went so far to say "if you get hit, we will punch back
twice as hard
" when coaching Senate Democrats on the ways of "Chicago land politics."

It's time for the President to practice what he preached on the campaign trail and respect all voices in the health care debate.

Help the RNC spread the facts about the Obama Democrats' dishonest rhetoric and stop their efforts to silence dissent by forwarding this email to your friends, and if you can, make a contribution of whatever you can afford to the RNC today.

And for more information about Obama's government-run health care experiment, go to www.BarackObamaExperiment.com. Matthew, there's too much at stake for Democrats and their left-wing allies to dominate the debate on health care reform with misinformation, name calling and scare tactics. Please help Republicans fight back today!

Sincerely,

Michael Steele
Chairman, Republican National Committee

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Desiring God Blogf: Conference and Documentary Preview


Desiring God Blog



Watch the Movie Collision at the Desiring God Conference

Posted: 12 Aug 2009 07:38 AM PDT

(Author: David Mathis)

Desiring God will provide a special screening of the forthcoming film Collision, featuring Doug Wilson and Christopher Hitchens, on Friday evening, September 25, at our national conference in Minneapolis.

Christopher Hitchens is one of the most popular new atheists. He wrote God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Collision is an 80-minute, documentary that follows him and Wilson on a 4-stop tour as they debate whether Christianity is good for the world.

Doug Wilson is a winsome defender of the faith and has proven immensely helpful to many in his engagements with Hitchens. Since Wilson is a speaker at our conference, we thought many attendees would be eager to view the film with us.

The screening will happen in the main auditorium at 9pm, following the opening session of the conference. Immediately following, John Piper will ask Wilson several follow-up questions about the film and his collision with Hitchens.

The aim of our conference is to look at the majesty of Jesus and his purposes for the world through the lens of Scripture, with John Calvin's life and theology adjusting the focus. We think John Calvin would like the way God is exalted in this film, and we trust it will strengthen your faith.

Here's the trailer to whet your appetite. We look forward to seeing you in Minneapolis this September!

New Curriculum for Jr. High

Posted: 11 Aug 2009 11:10 PM PDT

(Author: Karen Hieb)

Abiding in Jesus Curriculum

The new 28-lesson curriculum from Children Desiring God called "Abiding in Jesus" challenges junior high students to know Jesus as the savior and satisfier of their souls. Inspired by John 15, these lessons teach youth that abiding in Jesus leads to trusting him in all of life's situations and bearing spiritual fruit in him.

The study features interactive teaching with small group discussion, application, and prayer. There is also a special emphasis on students experiencing Christian fellowship.

The inclusion of journaling along with the teaching enables students to note important biblical truth. This will help to guide the class fellowship time and provide helpful direction for at-home Bible study and life application.

Samples from "Abiding in Jesus" and other curricula from CDG are available free online.

Friday, August 7, 2009

Debt For Clunkers

You have probably heard a lot about the so-called "Cash For Clunkers" program on the news, how it's so helpful and so popular, and going to do so much good for so many people, and for the economy, and so on and so forth. I have a different take. I think that this program is so idiotic that it's hard to know where to begin.

First, pitching the idea as "free money" toward the purchase of a new car, if you are turning in a qualifying car, with sufficiently poor gas mileage, which quite a few Americans do own, and then setting aside only a Billion Dollars for the program. I know, you're thinking, only a Billion? A billion is a ton of money, and you're right, it is, it's a ridiculous amount of money in fact, but bear with me. One billion dollars, at $4,500 a pop only goes as far as 222,222.2 cars. When people think they are getting "free money" you will have a lot more takers than that. So, thinking that they may have run out of money, although they don't know because they can't even process the claims that have been made so far, Congress has thrown in another Two Billion dollars, just to be on the safe side I guess, bringing the total amount of Cars that could be turned in to 666,666.6, but with no idea if even that will be enough.

Besides this, as I mentioned previously, the claims aren't being processed. The way the program works is that a person takes their "clunker" to a dealership, and the dealer determines, according to Government guidelines, if the "clunker" qualifies for the program, and if so, goes ahead and makes the deal, taking the $4,500 off of the price of the new car, and then submitting the paperwork for the deal to the Government, which, in turn, is supposed to cut the dealer a check for the $4,500. The problem is that while dealers are making deals and turning them in to the Government, the claims aren't being processed and the checks aren't being cut, so the dealers, already operating on the edge, are being forced to absorb a $4,500 hit on each car they sell on this program, at least in the short term.

Another problem is the simple fact that the Federal Government (quickly becoming a National Government, but I'll have to address that separately) is out of money. Even with no increase in spending, but just continuing the programs in place now, and leaving tax rates as they are today, we would continue going deeper in the hole. Of course, they are looking to increase spending by trillions of dollars over the coming years, and by comparison, three Billion dollars doesn't seem like much, but we are at the point were every single penny the Government spends is just more debt. So this program is yet another three billion dollars in debt, and that doesn't include the cost of processing all the claims, which will be significant because the Government never does anything efficiently.

Now we come to the claim that this program will have some positive impact on the environment. This is simply not true in the least. For starters a study has shown that supposed savings in gas, if in fact they were to be as claimed, would only amount to shutting down energy production in this Country for one hour per year. But that doesn't take a lot of other things into account. For starters, if paying less for gas, or getting better gas mileage, people will drive more, this is a studied and proven fact. Besides that, all of the cars that are turned in under this program will be destroyed, and therefore will need to be disposed of, which will have a negative environmental impact. Then there is a production cost (both monetarily and environmentally) of all the cars that will initially be produced to make up for the false bubble of demand for new cars over the short run, and transporting them to the dealerships. On top of that is the fact that some of these cars that are being destroyed would otherwise have been traded in and auctioned off to some junkyard or something, where people would have been able to pull spare parts off to use for their own vehicles that they are still driving, now those spare parts will not be available, causing new parts to be produced, having a higher environmental impact, as well costing the operators of the vehicles who need the parts considerably more than they would have paid otherwise.

Next we need to ask if this program is a good deal for people who participate in it. For the most part, people who participate will be purchasing new cars, the cost of which $4,500 will scarcely put a dent in, meaning that they will be taking out huge car loans to make up the difference. So, the great deal that they are getting means that they are trading in a car that they can afford in order to take $4,500 off of the price of a car that they can't even come close to affording, even with the discount, in order to save a couple of bucks a month in gas (remember they will also drive it more) giving them a huge pile of car debt, meaning that this "great deal" will be a net loss to their monthly disposable income. I suspect (and this is just me, I don't have a study on this) that a large share of these people will default on these loans (wow, what a blessing that will be to them). And besides, just a simple look at the math tells you how stupid this is. You take a car that qualifies as a Clunker under the program, which we will assume for the sake of this discussion is paid off (if it's not, things are even worse) and turn it in for the $4,500 discount on a new car. People are being encouraged to get Hybrid cars, because they get the best gas mileage. A new Toyota Prius starts at $22,000, but let's face it, most people won't go for the most basic model, so let's assume that they are somewhat reasonable and choose a model that is around $25,000, so they will be forced to finance around $20,500. They probably don't have triple A credit, and so, won't get the best interest rate, so, over the life of the loan, they are going to be paying back, on the conservative side, around $25,000. Even if we assume that gas goes up to $5.00 a gallon, roughly twice today's price, that $25,000 would have put 5,000 gallons of gas in their old clunker. Even at 15 miles per gallon, that would have taken them 75,000 miles. Now in their new Prius they will get roughly 50 miles per gallon (according to toyota.com/prius) an improvement of 35 miles per gallon, so that same 5,000 gallons of gas will take them 250,000 miles, but they still bought that 5,000 gallons, plus they spent $25,000 paying off the new car. To go the same 75,000 miles that the 5,000 gallons would have taken them in the old clunker would cost $7,500, so, apples to apples, to go the same distance, they will have paid $7,500 more with the new car. Adding that amount means that the old car would have taken them 97,500 miles for the same amount of money. So, they will have to drive this new car for 97,500 miles just to break even on the deal. Most people don't even keep a car that long, but assuming they do, let's remember that to this point they have not saved one single penny, that's just the break even point, assuming they haven't had to put any new parts on the car, which they would have and which would be considerably more expensive than on their old car, and service costs more also, so they'd have to drive a few thousand more miles to make up for that, but after they they should be to the good, right? Well, sure, but if they want to make back all of the money that the spent on this "great deal" they will have to drive that Prius for an additional 1,625,000 miles, and that doesn't include the increased cost given that they will drive more because they are getting better gas mileage. Some deal huh?

Worse still is what this will do to the new car market in the US. First, it will create a bubble in auto sales while the program runs it's course, followed by a collapse when people who would have bought a car later on now don't need one, and people who would have bought used cars can't because they have all been destroyed by Uncle Sam. Far from stimulating the economy, this program will be devastating.

So, what we get is a net negative environmental impact, significantly more debt, both for the nation, and for the suckers... I mean people... who participate in the program, and a significant net negative economic impact over the long term, especially as these people start to default on the car loans that they can't afford on cars that they could never afford and should not have purchased.

But that's not the worst part. As bad as all that is, it is nothing compared to this. The same morons who came up with this dud of a deal want to run your health care.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Desiring God Blog: Marriage Checklist

This list is pretty extensive, I guess some might feel it's excessive (that person is probably not married) but I have to tell you, I really wish I had had this in my hands before I got married. I think that just being really clear about all of this stuff would save a lot of couples a lot of heartache.

Matt

Desiring God Blog



Questions to Ask When Preparing for Marriage

Posted: 05 Aug 2009 11:36 PM PDT

(Author: John Piper)

In each of these sections one item could be added that I have not listed, namely, How do you handle and live with differences? How do you decide what can remain differences without jeopardizing the relationship? So as you deal with each subheading, include that in the discussion.

Theology

  • What do you believe about...everything?
  • Perhaps read through the Desiring God Affirmation of Faith to see where each other is on various biblical doctrines.
  • Discover how you form your views. What is the reasoning-believing process? How do you handle the Bible?

Worship and Devotion

  • How important is corporate worship? Other participation in church life?
  • How important is it to be part of a small accountability/support group?
  • What is the importance of music in life and worship?
  • What are your daily personal devotional practices? Prayer, reading, meditation, memorization.
  • What would our family devotions look like? Who leads out in this?
  • Are we doing this now in an appropriate way: praying together about our lives and future, reading the Bible together?

Husband and Wife

  • What is the meaning of headship and submission in the Bible and in our marriage?
  • What are expectations about situations where one of you might be alone with someone of the opposite sex?
  • How are tasks shared in the home: cleaning, cooking, washing dishes, yard work, car upkeep, repairs, shopping for food, and household stuff?
  • What are the expectations for togetherness?
  • What is an ideal non-special evening?
  • How do you understand who and how often sex is initiated?
  • Who does the checkbook—or are there two?

Children

  • If and when, should we have children? Why?
  • How many?
  • How far apart?
  • Would we consider adoption?
  • What are the standards of behavior?
  • What are the appropriate ways to discipline them? How many strikes before they're...whatever?
  • What are the expectations of time spent with them and when they go to bed?
  • What signs of affection will you show them?
  • What about school? Home school? Christian school? Public school?

Lifestyle

  • Own a home or not? Why?
  • What kind of neighborhood? Why?
  • How many cars? New? Used?
  • View of money in general. How much to the church?
  • How do you make money decisions?
  • Where will you buy clothes: Department store? Thrift store? In between? Why?

Entertainment

  • How much money should we spend on entertainment?
  • How often should we eat out? Where?
  • What kind of vacations are appropriate and helpful for us?
  • How many toys? Snowmobile, boat, cabin?
  • Should we have a television? Where? What is fitting to watch? How much?
  • What are the criteria for movies and theater? What will our guidelines be for the kids?

Conflict

  • What makes you angry?
  • How do you handle your frustration or anger?
  • Who should bring up an issue that is bothersome?
  • What if we disagree both about what should be done, and whether it is serious?
  • Will we go to bed angry at each other?
  • What is our view of getting help from friends or counselors?

Work

  • Who is the main breadwinner?
  • Should the wife work outside the home? Before kids? With kids at home? After kids?
  • What are your views of daycare for children?
  • What determines where you will locate? Job? Whose job? Church? Family?

Friends

  • Is it good to do things with friends but without spouse?
  • What will you do if one of you really likes to hang out with so and so and the other doesn't?

Health and Sickness

  • Do you have, or have you had any, sicknesses or physical problems that could affect our relationship? (Allergies, cancer, eating disorders, venereal disease, etc.)
  • Do you believe in divine healing and how would prayer relate to medical attention?
  • How do you think about exercise and healthy eating?
  • Do you have any habits that adversely affect health?

Previously posted as "Topics for Conversation When a Man and a Woman Are Considering Marriage."

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Is The MPAA Asleep At The Switch

I am someone who really likes movies. That is to say, I really enjoy a good movie. I like good, well thought out stories. I'm not one of those people who will say, well, I did like it because of the special effects. In this day and age, I kind of expect good special effects, so to say that a good job was done in that area should be a given these days in my mind, and honestly, I wouldn't care if a movie had substandard visuals, as long as there was a solid story as a base. I really like movies that make me think, where there is something under the surface, for the most part I don't really want to just sit there and be entertained, I would much rather be engaged.

Perhaps that is why one of my favorite movies is "12 Angry Men" with Henry Fonda, which was made in 1957, is in black and white, and nearly the entire movie takes place in a simple Jury Room. There is no question that this movie is 100% story driven, as there are virtually no (possibly none at all) special effects.

That being said, we all, especially if we have kids, look at movie ratings. You know, those letters that accompany all movies, and are set by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). For anyone who doesn't know, the ratings go like this, G For General Audiences, PG Parental Guidance Suggested as some material might not be suitable for Children, PG13 Parents Strongly Cautioned as some material might not be appropriate for children under 13, R Restricted no one under 17 admitted without a parent or guardian, and finally NC17 which means that no children 17 or under will be permitted under any circumstances. These are general guidelines, and of course, it is understood that different people will have different personal standards, and should take some care for themselves to make sure that they don't take their kids into a movie that is not suitable for them, but still, the guidelines should be reliable, in my opinion.

Lately I have noticed a trend toward rating movies lower than they really should be. For example, the other night my wife and I watched "The Dark Knight" which is the second of the new Batman movies, and a great movie in many respects, but violent and with a lot of adult themes and content. After the movie ended I asked my wife, "what would you think that was rated?" She said, "R, no question about it." So I picked up the case and there it was, "PG13." We were pretty stunned. Another great movie that came out in the past year was "Taken" with Liam Neason, a movie I highly recommend for adults, but again, another movie that deserved and R rating and once again was rated PG13.

On a more extreme note, the last of the Rambo movies, which came out at the beginning of 2008, was rated R by the MPAA, and certainly should have been at least that, but even the producers were surprised when they got back an "R" on their first cut. They had decided to make the movie that they wanted to make, and sent it in to the review board. They expected to receive a rating of NC17, and then follow MPAA guidance to get it down to an R. While they were happy that the initial cut came back with an R, and they didn't have to change anything, they were shocked, because they felt that they had made a movie that went beyond the "R" rating.

Even worse was the movie "Watchmen" which, aside from being one of the most horrible movies I've ever seen, and I'm very sorry I ever saw it, and if anyone ever whips out a DVD of it for you to watch, I have just one word of advice... RUN!!!! But aside from the fact that it is horrible, it was rated R, and there is no question whatsoever that it should have been NC17. On this one there really is no excuse for it having been rated R, being that no one should ever see it, but certainly no child should ever be exposed to a movie such as this.

Now, as I said, the MPAA is supposed to give guidelines, to help you to know how rough a movie is going to be, not to censor it, or to disallow certain aspects of a movie or story, with the exception of what is called hard core porn, or what most people know as X-rated material, which is simply not shown in normal theatres (although parts of Watchmen were certainly pornographic in nature, they did not cross over the line to actual, so-called, hard core porn).

My issue in this post is not with the type of movies that are being made, in a culture such as ours people are free to watch whatever kind of filth they wish to, and like I said, ultimately we are responsible for what movies we see (and believe me, if I had done some research into Watchmen ahead of time when my wife said she wanted to see it, I would have said no, and once I explained what I found she wouldn't have wanted to see it either) I still think that we should be able to trust the guidelines. Since the MPAA purports to evaluate movies and issue guidelines to help us to know which ones are family friendly, and which are not, and to what extent and so on, they should be consistent. I do have a problem with the lowering of standards in movie ratings, because this makes it harder to know what will be appropriate and what will not.

While at this present time the G and PG ratings are still pretty much on the nose, if the current trends continue, which there is no reason to think that they will not, it is only a matter of time before they cannot be trusted either.

I'm not asking the MPAA to adopt all of my standards and restrict what movies are shown, but just be consistent, and give us a fair shot at knowing what movies to see, and what movies to avoid.

Monday, August 3, 2009

Thought For A Monday

Repentance isn't being sorry that you've done something bad, it is being sorry that you are the kind of person who would even do such a thing. (Adapted from "Today in the Word" from Moody Bible Institute)

Saturday, August 1, 2009

Thought For Today

We do not obey God because we are good. We are good because, and only to the extent that, we obey God.