No Matter What Happens

John Calvin:

...our chief consolation is that this is the cause of God and that he will take it in hand to bring it to a happy issue.  Even though all the princes of the earth were to unite for the maintenance of our Gospel, still we must not make that the foundation of our hope.  So, likewise, whatever resistance we see today offered by almost all the world to the progress of the truth, we must not doubt that our Lord will come at last to break through all the undertakings of men and make a passage for his word.  Let us hope boldly, then, more than we can understand; he will still surpass our opinion and our hope.

--found in The Puritan Hope by Iain Murray (highly recommended!)

Two Perspectives

Two perspectives on the Christian's duty at election time, by respected Reformed pastors:

By Rev. Joel Beeke of the HRC--
Why My Conscience Won't Let Me Not Vote for Romney

And by Rev. Nathan Eshelman of the RPCNA--
Why the Word of God Will Not Let Me Vote for Mitt Romney

Can you guess which author I find most persuasive?  As you might have guessed, while I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Beeke, on this point, I agree wholeheartedly with Rev. Eshelman. It seems to me that the argument for voting for Mr. Romney is based in fear and pragmatism, whereas the argument for abstaining (or voting for a third party) is based in faith and confidence.  But what do you think? :)

Why I Didn't Vote

I've always felt a little uneasy about voting for the "lesser of two evils" in our country's elections, but it wasn't until I went through a membership class at the RPCNA (Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America) that I finally became fully comfortable with abstaining from voting.  The RPCNA has a strong history of political dissent, and while their stance has changed slightly over the years, the RPCNA Testimony still has some interesting things to say about the Christian's responsibilities regarding voting.

Here is a blog post I came across the other day, by Rev. Eshelman of the RPCNA, that quotes the relevant portions of the Testimony.  I haven't done any exhaustive study on the topic of the establishment principle (though I intend to, someday, when I get the time), so I reserve the right to change my views in the future, but for the time being, I would say that I am in agreement with the portions of the RPCNA Testimony quoted in this blog post.

A Reformed Voter's Guide

Edited to add: see the comments section for a link to another article with similar conclusions, this one written by an FP.

Fund-raising Letters

Every now and then we get these fund-raising letters from political parties that are a real insult to one's intelligence. You know the kind--one-sentence paragraphs and lots of underlining and bold type and capital letters and exclamation points. The kind that is often accompanied by a "political survey" with not-so-subtly loaded questions.

I was going to write a blog post about those fund-raising letters--something about the dumbing-down of American politics--but then I discovered that Bill Watterson of Calvin and Hobbes has already said what I have to say, and said it more succinctly. :)

A Beautiful Story

This is the sort of story that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. :)

A couple of very determined residents transformed their Philadelphia alley from a slum--broken out windows, drug dealers, and all--to Philadelphia's "Most Beautiful Block" of 2009.

Read all about it here.

As I studied political science at Indiana University, I became especially interested in local governments and urban planning, so stories like this are right up my alley (no pun intended).

A Wise Letter

My mom recently got this letter from her brother. She shared it with me and I liked it so much, that I asked permission to share it with y'all (didn't I say that like a true Texan? Aren't y'all proud?)

My point in posting this is not to start a debate over any of the individual points in this letter. I'm not sure that I agree with every point myself. But I really appreciate the general premise, summarized in the first paragraph.

So here it is, basically unedited (I fixed a typo):
EDIT: wow, didn't realize quite how long this would be, so I am abbreviating it slightly. Ellipses where the deleted portions were.

I have a theory that is hard to explain. It is that many times if not all the time in politics the right things happen for the wrong reasons and the wrong things for the right reasons, and that that happens on multiple levels - so that the right things are also the wrong things and the right reasons are also the wrong reasons.

Jimmy Carter was a good president because he didn't do much: the wrong reason but the right result.

Obama may let all the illegals become legal for free without responsibility for having violated the law. His reason may be compassion (the right reason on one level) but an offense of justice (the wrong reason) on another level -- but what may be the result? The illegals become citizens, claiming benefits (the wrong thing), paying taxes (the right thing), getting educated (the right thing) at our expense (the wrong thing), and eventually becoming "climatized" as true Americans (the right thing). The long term result may be the right thing, while intermediate results may be the wrong thing. Or it might play out a different way.

What about the war? Why are we at war? To protect our country against terrorism (the right reason) except maybe that's only a front for the true reason, which might be to protect private oil interests (the wrong reason). Even if it's for the aforementioned right reason, it might be the wrong thing - the wrong way to approach it. So we may be doing the wrong thing for the right reason. But what is the result? We improve the quality of life and slowly teach a stiff-necked people a little about freedom which they would never learn otherwise (the right thing) but this is also the wrong thing because to do so we must force our will upon them (the wrong reason) and expand our imperialism (the wrong reason). And the result, instead of being becoming more free (the right thing), the Iraqui people become instead only more incensed against their imperialist aggressors (the wrong thing), which is also the right thing because American imperialism should not be allowed to go unchecked. Yet despite the wrong result of creating enemies and slowly alienating the world against us (the wrong thing) the purposes of God are furthered because it begins to breaks the shackles of a Satanic religion (the right reason). It does this by introducing the decadent Western ways upon a religious and in many ways moral people (the Saudis, for example, complain that Western ways are corrupting their people), but these decadent Western ways also bring with them an appreciation and love for freedom - the wrong reasons producing the right results, and so in a back-handed way our American imperialism is just what they need and they benefit even if we have no right to force them.

...

Even people's reasons are both right and wrong on different levels. Democrats often do things out of compassion (the right reason) while failing to understand the principles of self reliance and responsibility. While Republicans, upholding these principles (supposedly), sometimes go too far.

The last Republican convention I watched (2004) had all the right reasons, but few of the expressed right reasons actually made it beyond the doors of the convention hall, and they did all the wrong things.

It is noticed that some economic group is being short-changed and the desire is to fix it (the right reason), so a law is passed which gives that group a tax refund, which is right thing because it corrects the injustice, but the wrong thing because again it singles out one group for special treatment, creating a new injustice.

...

And what if our political decisions result in the weakening of American sovereignty? which any trueblooded John Bircher can tell you plenty about. This is certainly the wrong thing. Or is it? Perhaps in the justice of God a nation cannot be trusted and must be reduced whose people violate His laws and ignore and forget the principles of morality. Perhaps we are not worthy of the freedom we have and so some of it must be taken away from us and we must live under reduced liberty because that is all we are capable of abiding. So the destruction of America by scheming and wicked men may be the right thing for the wrong reasons. And yet through it all the other nations of the world are blessed. Yet they also become more and more sucked in to one world system ruled by a faceless nameless elite. Satan's kingdom thrives ... but only so that it will fall in the end and be taken over at the second coming ... and at this point I must end my speculation because it's more and more guessing and how shall I make sense of it all ... but at least I perceive that there are many levels to all developments, and the worst may yet be the best in some ways. As Charles Dickens said, in the days of the French revolution and the accompaning turning upside down of all the systems of men, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times ..."

I haven't forgotten...

To follow up on a previous post:

I just think that the truth ought to be able to win on its own merits, and that it shouldn't be necessary to exaggerate the views of our opponents to prove that the truth is better. Consider 2 Tim 2:24-26, about speaking the truth in meekness. I thought Matthew Henry was helpful in understanding these verses.

I find myself thinking of a friend I had in college, who was your typical secular Muslim. He was converted his senior year. As far as I know, he became a Christian not because someone sat down with him and pointed out all the errors of Islam, but because he saw the truth in action via the witness and lifestyle of several Christian friends.

I'm trying to imagine how he would have responded if I had gone to him, before his conversion, and announced, "Islam is really a religion of violence!" I would think that he would have been insulted, just as I would be insulted if a Muslim came to me and tried to tell me what Christianity is all about. None of that was necessary anyway, as once he started reading the Bible, he was convinced just because, well, the truth is convincing, at least that's how I would like to see it. :) (And Mr. Friend from College, I don't know if you read this, but if you do, feel free to correct me if I'm misrepresenting you.)

Last point...I feel as though some (many?) think that there's secular Islam, and then there's "true" Islam as defined by the Quran, much as we have secular Christianity today versus "true" Christianity as defined by the Bible. But since the Quran is not inspired by God, then all of Islam's many variations are inventions of man, and no one branch of Islam is any more "true" than another. So we as Christians may as well concern ourselves with what the majority of Muslims think (don't forget to check out this study), since the radical few are no more relevant than the rest. I hope that makes sense.

Of course, this is just all my opinion, so please don't take it personally. I am almost hesitant to click "publish post" but I think (hope) that this is not written in a way to cause offense. :)

Coming soon: A New Blog!!! After I finish the series on my siblings, that is. (Mercy, I know you were hoping I'd forgotten, but you're next!)

Interesting article

A friend recently posted their dismay that a "socialist" has been elected president, and wished that McCain had been elected instead. I tried to point out that Bush and McCain are pretty socialist as well, but I think my point was perhaps not getting across very well.

Here's an interesting article for your perusal:

Like Barack Obama, John McCain is a Socialist

Note that the New American is a very conservative publication. I say this to point out that you don't have to be a "radical left-wing nut" to disagree with Bush and McCain's policies.

And to clarify, I did not vote for Obama because I am very strongly pro-life (the only vote I cast this election cycle was for this guy), but I am excited to see an African-American family in the White House. I will be praying that Mr. Obama and his family are kept safe and sound, and not hurt by the racist hate that is unfortunately still alive and well in our society. I will also be praying that Mr. Obama has a change of heart regarding the rights of the unborn (but I'm not holding my breath on that one).

This saddens me

I don't know why I'm trying to post when I have to leave in fifteen minutes, but this really struck me (in a sad way) and I felt like I ought to share it.

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race

Take a look at the box on the left--survey respondents were asked to pick adjectives that describe blacks. Notice where white republicans fall on this graph (the red squares). They are the least likely, of all white political groups, to apply positive adjectives to blacks, and among the most likely to think that negative adjectives apply. Note that less than 15% of white republicans think that the word "law-abiding" applies to most blacks! That's right, 85% of white republicans think that most black people are NOT law-abiding! Yikes!

This makes me wonder how many white republicans actually *know* any black people. I would have liked to see that question in the survey--how often do you interact with black people, and on what level?--and to see how the answer to that question correlates to the adjectives chosen.

But to a certain extent, your familiarity with black people ought to be irrelevant--surely any charitable American would be willing to assume the best about people that they don't know?

Racist Incidents Give Obama Campaigners Pause

Sadly, I think most white Americans (at least the ones I know) are unaware that this kind of blatant racism is still alive and well in the United States. I have certainly witnessed more than I care to have witnessed, and it saddens me greatly to know that my children will most likely experience this kind of racism for themselves.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051203014.html?sid=ST2008051301359

I think most of the racism my kids will encounter is the kind based in ignorance rather than malice, i.e. "You are such an articulate young man!" "So, do you play basketball?" "Hey bro, do you know where I can score some weed?" which is bad enough...but the odds are, they will also encounter the more malicious stuff at some point in their lives. I wish I knew how best to prepare them for it. :(

On a lighter note, I am out of coffee!!!! Aaaaahhhh! Must run to the store before the girls I watch arrive!!!!