Christian Governance Thu, 07 Nov 2019 06:34:05 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Peering into the future: Rod Taylor /peering-into-the-future-rod-taylor/ Fri, 04 Jan 2013 06:33:12 +0000 /?p=22 “Hindsight is 20-20”. At least that’s what people like to tell themselves. “I may not know the future but at least I can see what went wrong in the past”. The so-called “Monday morning quarterback” is the proverbial couch potato who can sit back and—knowing what the defense did wrong and what special circumstances affected the outcome of the game—describe the perfect plays he would have run if he had been the quarterback.

There are two problems with the assumption that we would have done better than a particular quarterback or, for that matter, a particular politician “if I had been in his shoes”. One problem is that we are not in his shoes. Using the quarterback as an example, we did not look up to see two 300-lb. men bearing down us at full speed as we scrambled in the backfield, looking for a receiver. He did. We have the advantage of multi-angled slow-motion replays. He did not. We don’t have to guess what the other men on the field are about to do because they have already done it. The second problem—staying with the quarterback allegory—is that the past means different things to different people. The quarterback may see that he held onto the ball for too long. The guards and tackles may see that they failed to defend the pocket. The receivers may realize (or maybe not) that they were too predictable or too slow and that they failed to give the quarterback a target he could safely hit. The coach will be blamed for poor strategy or even for hiring the wrong people. Even the referees will be blamed for poor calls.

In the political realm, it is even worse. Unlike the goalposts in a football stadium, political goalposts sometimes move. We live in an age where not only the future is mysterious but even the past is difficult sometimes to assess. The national mainstream media claim to be reporting on current events—what we normally call “the news”—in an objective manner but their extreme biases are so blatant and pervasive that the opinionated reporting of last week’s news is already tainting the historical perspectives which should guide us in next week’s decisions. The old saying is that “he who does not remember the past is doomed to repeat it”. We have a responsibility to remember the lessons of the past and apply them to our future; but first we must understand what really happened. Otherwise, we will be making bad decisions based on false assumptions about the past. Modern technology has made it very easy to record the past; it’s also made it very easy to create a false past, something too many in the mainstream media have mastered.

Take an example or two: the misrepresentation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the dehumanization of the unborn. Canadian courts—aided and abetted by a complicit mass media and a cowardly Parliament—have created a myth about the very recent history that led to the legalization of same-sex “marriage”. The historically-verifiable facts that “sexual orientation” was not a Charter-protected status and that the courts did not have a legal basis for “reading it into” the Charter are not known to most Canadians. They have accepted the myth, the lie, that justice demanded the inclusion of same-sex partnerships under the umbrella of “marriage” which otherwise is defined by the union of opposites. But the media is the message and the dominant media moguls of today manipulate the narrative to suit their proclivities.

Most Canadians have believed the lie that the Constitution guarantees the right to a taxpayer-funded abortion. Even the Supreme Court in 1988 did not say that it did. However, that is the narrative that the chattering classes found convenient to promulgate. “Right to choose” is an empty phrase, if not carefully defined, but it allows political advantage to those who use it as a brutal lever to squeeze votes from the misinformed. Many Canadians still do not know that there is no legal protection for the unborn for the full nine months up to the very moment of birth. Most Canadians are unaware of the 491 infants who were born alive after a “botched” abortion but who died later through neglect or infanticide. This kind of information is not made available by the media mavens of our day. It might interfere with their stranglehold on public policy.

So looking backwards over the past year, the past decade, the past century, what wisdom can we gain to make better decisions going into the future? We must recognise that “he who controls the past controls the future”. We must take responsibility to understand “current events” (rather the recent past) for ourselves. When choosing our news sources (“who should we believe?”), we need to seek wise and honest men and women, in fact courageous men and women, who will speak the truth and not merely spout the latest politically-correct dogma. Dogma and propaganda have been with mankind since the beginning. Lies about the past have ever been used to affect outcomes in the future. The Pharisees lied about Jesus to manipulate Pilate’s judgment. Hitler lied about the Jews to co-opt the German people into his plans.

It is incumbent on us to find good sources of news and commentary, fresh springs of wisdom and insight that are not merely polluted wells or broken cisterns, spewing out misinformation and falsehoods. If you can get it, check out SUN TV news for a fresh perspective. On your internet, pull up some archives from Roadkill Radio. Check out Lifesite News for a broad view of the challenges to human life and dignity. And if you really want up-to-the-minute perspectives on today’s events—with a clear window on human nature and guidance for the tough choices we all face—check out the Bible. King Solomon’s Book of Proverbs has not yet been crushed under the bus of political correctness. The unchanging truths about God, the world He made and mankind’s role in it are a reliable anchor for us as we are tossed about by the storms of life. For a fresh outlook on tomorrow and the new year ahead, it’s good to know that the mercies of God are “new every morning”, that “He will never leave you nor forsake you” and that “He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him”.

We can face the future with confidence if our trust is in Almighty God, maker of heaven and earth.  2013 has no surprises for Him. No “fiscal cliff”, no “rumours of wars” can unhinge his plans for us or shake us loose from His Hand if we listen to His voice: “Let not your heart be troubled”.

Connecticut slaughter and the myth of a “good divorce” /connecticut-slaughter-and-the-myth-of-a-good-divorce/ Thu, 03 Jan 2013 06:29:11 +0000 /?p=20 From: ChristianGovernance eletter, January 1, 2013
In response to the recent Connecticut school slaughter, the Family In America published the following note:

The Family in America – December 20, 2012 The Topic: “For Children, Divorce is Always Bitter”

The News Story: “In divorce, mom had authority over Conn. shooter”

The Associated Press and others report that there was no indication in court files of any particular ill will in the divorce of Peter and Nancy Lanza, parents of Adam Lanza, who shot and killed 26 people in a Newtown, Connecticut elementary school last Friday. The divorce papers were released Monday, and according to the AP, “There is no evidence of bitterness in the court file, no exchange of accusations or drawn out custody disputes.” The Lanzas shared custody of Adam, though the boy lived primarily with his mother. The divorce provided a substantial alimony for Mrs. Lanza, and she did not have to work outside the home. The AP story also reports that Dan Holmes, a landscaper and friend of Nancy Lanza, gives a different account. Nancy, he said, “was still bitter about the divorce and spoke vocally about her ex-husband.”

The media’s attention to the Lanzas’ divorce indicates the public’s understanding that divorce is, as a general rule, problematic for children. What few understand, however, is that the supposed amicability of a split says little about how the children fare.

(Source: Associated Press, “In divorce, mom had authority over Conn. shooter,” 17 December 2012.)

The New Research: “The Myth of the ‘Good Divorce’”

Since the no-fault regime was established in the 1970s, the so-called helping professions have performed verbal gymnastics to soothe the consciences of divorcing parents, claiming that if they work hard and maintain a “good divorce,” the effects upon their children will be minimal. Yet a groundbreaking study by Paul Amato suggests that the very concept of a divorce that can accommodate children is pure fiction; the noted sociologist establishes that children of parents who claim to have achieved a good divorce fare not much better than peers whose parents make no such claim.

Amato and his research team at Penn State conducted a cluster analysis of 944 post-divorce families using data from Waves 2 (1992-94) and 3 (2001-03) of the National Survey of Families and Households. Within their sample, they identified three types of divorcing families: those with high-contact or “cooperating coparenting,” meaning parents with a “good divorce,” who report the highest scores in terms of their children talking to them, visiting with them, and staying overnight with the nonresident parent; “parallel parenting with some conflict” where nonresident parents have only moderate levels of contact with children; and “single parenting” in which the nonresident parent, in most cases the father, rarely sees his children and has little communication with the mother.

The Penn State researchers then measured the differences between the three divorce-parenting clusters and six indicators of children’s adjustment and well-being when the children were between ages 7 and 19 (Wave 2), and another six indicators when the children were between the ages of 19 and 33 (Wave 3). In only two of the twelve measures (behavior problems in childhood, reported by parents, and having close ties to their fathers in adulthood, reported by children) did the children of the cooperating-coparenting cluster have significantly more desirable scores than their peers from the other two family types. Yet in every other measure (school grades, satisfaction with school, self-esteem, life satisfaction, substance abuse, number of sexual partners, losing one’s virginity before age 16, entering a marital or cohabiting relationship before age 20, and closeness to mother), the children of a “good divorce” did not differ significantly from the other children of divorce, whether in childhood, adolescence, or adulthood.

In essence, the children of “good divorces” ended up a lot more like the children of bad divorces and very little like peers whose parents did not divorce at all. Indeed, Amato’s preliminary analysis established that children of continuously married parents had significantly higher levels of well-being on all twelve indicators (p < 0.05 for each) than children of divorced parents.

As his findings counter much research that appears to show positive child outcomes of the good divorce, Amato suggests the possibility not only that many earlier studies “cherry picked” the data, but that also “many researchers and observers wanted [the good-divorce myth] to be true.” What an indictment of those who should know better. While not entirely dismissive of efforts to temper the downsides of divorce for children by parents, the sociologist nonetheless warns, “These interventions may be insufficient to counter the full range of problems associated with divorce.”

Given how Amato quantifies that reality, perhaps it’s time for American parents-and their enablers in the helping professions-to redirect their efforts into building a good marriage, and work hard at subordinating the abstract desires of adults to the concrete needs of children.

CBC’s “The Current” digs deeper with justification for abusive comedy assault against home schooling mother /cbcs-the-current-digs-deeper-with-justification-for-abusive-comedy-assault-against-home-schooling-mother/ Thu, 03 Jan 2013 06:04:09 +0000 /?p=5 From ChristianGovernance eletter – December 14, 2012

Many of you listened to the disgusting CBC assault on parents, home schooling and God’s law (5th Commandment) that we addressed a few eletters ago. Click here and scroll down to the story where you’ll find a link to the recording of the program.

Following is how “The Current” responded to a complaint about the program. This is probably a form letter that some of you may also have received. To call it inadequate is to be guilty of gross understatement. That they would justify their use of this mocking anti-parent filth is inexcusable. Click here if you want to see a brand new book on the scope of CBC’s arrogance and corruption.

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Defamatory Homeschooling skit
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:38:10 -0500
From: JENNIFER MOROZ mailto:[email protected]
CC: CBC Ombudsman mailto:[email protected]

Dear Mr. [X],

Thank you for writing in.  We take all our listener concerns very seriously, so I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to address yours.

I’m sorry you were upset by the skit we played at the end of our segment.  You say it “grossly misrepresents what actually takes place inside home schools and leads the public to make false impressions of how serious we are as a group about educating our children.” Let me begin by saying that the skit was in no way meant as a true representation of home schooling, nor was it an editorial comment on home schooling by The Current or Ms. Tremonti.  If you listen to the show regularly, you know that Ms. Tremonti “gives” the ”Last Word” to different voices on different days – it is not her own. Regular listeners also know The Current often incorporates skits and other comedic content thematically tied to stories on the show.  And I would argue that the skit at issue here played as much on the sometimes difficult relationship between teenagers and their parents as it did on home schooling, per se. But I do agree that when this skit aired on the radio, we might have been clearer leading up to it that it was, in fact, comedy – and not an extension of the homeschooling segment as such. Online, the skit was clearly labeled as comedy, with the name of the troupe performing it.  That said, even without a label, I think it was clear that the skit was not a true representation of home schooling.  It certainly wasn’t our intention to convey that it was. Nor was it our intention to convey that the skit in any way represents how The Current views the home schooling community.

If this was not clear to you, and if the skit was offensive to you, I am sorry.   We always have vigorous conversations around what we air and how it is presented – and emails like yours are great reminders of why we need to continue to do so.

Thank you again for reaching out. I hope my reply has reassured you of the continuing integrity of The Current.

It is my responsibility to inform you that if you are not satisfied with this response, you may wish to submit the matter for review by the CBC Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman, an independent and impartial body reporting directly to the President, is responsible for evaluating program compliance with the CBC’s journalistic policies. The Ombudsman may be reached by mail at the address shown below, or by fax at (416) 205-2825, or by e-mail at [email protected]


Jennifer Moroz
Executive Producer
The Current

>>> CBC Ombudsman 11/29/2012 12:54 pm >>>

Dear Mr. [X]:

I write to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail.  It is the customary practice of CBC’s Office of the Ombudsman to share complaints with the relevant programmers, who have the right to respond first to criticism of their work.  I have therefore shared your e-mail with Jennifer Moroz, acting Executive Producer of The Current.  If you are not satisfied with the response you receive you may ask me to review the matter.

Programmers are asked to try to respond within twenty working days.


Kirk LaPointe
CBC Ombudsman

Socialist sex /socialist-sex/ Fri, 21 Dec 2012 06:09:16 +0000 /?p=8 From ChristianGovernance eletter – December 8, 2012

Native activists demand stronger HIV/AIDS fight

The above article provides one of many illustrations of today’s ideology of socialist sex, which is a view about sex which privatizes the pleasure and socializes the cost.

This simply means the right to engage in whatever sexual activity one wants with the expectation that the state will extort (tax) money from responsible citizens to cover the cost of perverted, economically irresponsible behavior. This is theft-based – or socialist – sex. It is morally depraved on several levels. It is also dangerous and socially destructive.

There’s no such thing as “social conservativism.” One is either comprehensively “conservative” or comprehensively socialistic (humanistic) or intellectually incoherent. Perverse sexuality – sexual intimacy outside of marriage – socialist economics and centralized governmental models are all part of the same worldview.

Those who have a civilized view of sexuality, and a Biblical understanding of the family repudiate tyranny and the encroaching of the state on parental government, freedoms and private property. With a culture of intact families, a suffocating social welfare state is unnecessary to assist the poor.

Would you be willing to sacrifice Canada’s socialist medical system in its entirety if that was the necessary price to pay to end taxpayer funding for abortion and the treatment of “lifestyle” sexual diseases (e.g., HIV/AIDS)? Christians who are economic or governmental leftists undermine their efforts on behalf of “social conservative” convictions and policies. Such Christians cannot talk about socialist sex because doing so would expose the incoherence in their own views. The number of socialist-sympathetic Christians in our day is one of the biggest reasons why we aren’t making headway in Canada – and the U.S. and elsewhere – for social conservative causes.

Politicians receiving “The Biblical Legacy of Canada’s Parliament Buildings” /politicians-receiving-the-biblical-legacy-of-canadas-parliament-buildings/ Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:11:16 +0000 /?p=10 December 6, 2012

We are asking you to pray. If you have read a copy of our booklet, “The Biblical Legacy of Canada’s Parliament Buildings,” you will know that a clear Gospel message can be seen in the selection of Scriptures that are found primarily on the Tower of Peace and Victory (the Peace Tower). We bring out that message in the course of discussing the Scriptures and some Canadian history in this booklet.

One of our supporters has generously agreed to cover the cost of getting one of these booklets into the hands of every MP and Senator in Canada’s central government. Please pray that, as they begin to receive these booklets in the days ahead, these politicians and their staff would be impacted both personally and professionally with the message from the Scriptures that exists prominently – day in and day out – at their work place in Canada’s Capital.

Why does God’s discriminating love embarass most Christians? /why-does-gods-discriminating-love-embarass-most-christians/ Thu, 06 Dec 2012 06:15:58 +0000 /?p=12 From: ChristianGovernance eletter, December 6, 2012

In reading the latter chapters of Acts, I was struck by a contrast in Paul’s attitude towards two different types of people.

Christians today really seem to have difficulty dealing with the idea that we can, and should, handle different people differently. True, we are to love all men – even our enemies.

The story goes that a Christian couple was in the counsellor’s office, and they were hoping he would give them a Biblically acceptable rationale to divorce. They told him they no longer loved each other. He told them to start loving each other again as husband and wife. They said they couldn’t. He said, start then by loving yourselves simply as neighbours because God commands us to love our neighbours. We can’t do that, they said. We fight like cats and dogs, and we don’t even like each other. Fine, said the counselor, let’s start at the lowest possible level: Love her like your enemy because God has commanded us to love our enemies.

We are also commanded to do all we can to live at peace with all men. But even if we do all we can, we may find a lack of cooperation from another person, thus preventing peace.

But these aren’t the sum total of what the Bible teaches about relationships. We are to be ready to forgive, but Biblically you can’t forgive someone who doesn’t ask for forgiveness over a genuine offence. Then there’s the annoying yet popular statement Christians like to make about hating the sin and loving the sinner. With very few exceptions, the main issue about which we ever say this is homosexuality, which itself should be a red flag. It’s a non-livable concept. It only makes sense in theory. And non-Christians don’t even take that claim seriously anyway.

But here’s a more problematic situation for many Christians: we talk about God being a God of love. Then atheists point to all the terrible judgments God poured out on people in Old Testament times. And we sometimes point out the terrible warnings of judgment in the New Testament Scriptures as well. This is problematic, though, because the only way that many of us can make sense of God’s judgment in OT times is to attribute that behaviour to a different kind of God.

What so many of us fail to see is that we have theorized religion rather than maintained the personal realities of God. We can talk about His judgment in theory, and talk about good and evil in theory, but when we have to talk about the personal implications of sin, wickedness and judgment, we get stuck. The reality is, however, that God deals with the just and the wicked in two very different ways. God never promises the kind of peace, protection, love and healing to non-Christians that He promises to provide to His people. It is not surprising at all that the Bible records God’s personal judgment on wicked people as well as His great blessings of love and mercy on His children.

It’s stunning how Biblically illiterate we are, or how embarrassed we are at God, that we get caught stuttering and speechless when non-Christians claim great contradictions with their false notion of a god of love and the inconsistency with that caricature and the Biblical record of God’s judgment.

Back to Acts. In Chapter 20, we read about the apostle Paul meeting with the Ephesian elders. These are men. These are leaders. These are bold, courageous shepherds of God’s people in a hostile environment. Yet, of all that Paul said – instruction, exhortation, warning – the one item that Luke says dominated their thinking when he was finished, was that they would see him no more:  “When Paul had finished speaking, he knelt down with all of them and prayed. They all wept as they embraced him and kissed him. What grieved them most was his statement that they would never see his face again.” What a bunch of girlie-men! What’s with this display of emotion! Stiff upper lip, boys!!!

So we see here, the great affection between Paul and the Ephesian elders that came from the development and nurturing of close, trusting, loving friendship.

Then a few chapters later, we see Paul lashing out in anger at a false accuser. (And yes, there is such a thing as godly anger. Be angry and sin not, we are commanded. Anger is an important legitimate emotion that, when targeted at a problem rather than a person, can be used as a powerful motivation to effectively address that problem.) In Acts 23, the high priest, Ananias, ordered someone to slap Paul, and the Apostle responded: “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!” Paul was subsequently rebuked for speaking this way to a high priest, but his anger itself is nowhere condemned. He was condemning hypocrisy. He was expressing disgust at injustice.

We need more of this kind of mature, well-rounded, passionate Christian spirit among Christians today. Pray for it for yourself and for others, for Christian leaders – pastors and others. We need more godly anger against the anarchy of public moral perversion that is tolerated, and even embraced. We need more godly love and devotion among Christians to strengthen the unity of the Church, and to make it an inviting place for others. The best experts draw a link between most homosexuality and abuse experienced by children in their homes. There are so many incapable and wicked parents who withhold love from their children, intentionally or otherwise. If they are overtly abusive, they make things worse, but even the simple withholding of love and acceptance can be devastating for some, and be a decisive factor in the perverted, disoriented attempts of these young people to seek out love elsewhere only to become ensnared in homosexuality or some other devastating lifestyle.

God has a different relationship with Christians than He does with unbelievers. Psalm 1:6 reads: For the LORD knows the way of the righteous …”. God deals with Christians differently from how He relates to non-Christians. So should we. Even where we are commanded to do good to all men, we are told to give priority to other Christians: Galatians 6:10 – “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” This particular love and relationship should encourage and uplift us, not be a cause of embarrassment. The Apostle Paul is a great example to us in such things. We would do well to meditate on his example as it’s found in the pages of the book of Acts.

May God grant the Church more godly love, more godly anger and more godly sorrow. And may He grant more of us the courage to pray for these things – for His glory, for the building of His Church and for the advancement of His Kingdom.

Critics of our commentary against the BC RCMP “It Gets Better” video can’t make rational arguments /critics-of-our-commentary-against-the-bc-rcmp-it-gets-better-video-cant-make-rational-arguments/ Fri, 30 Nov 2012 06:18:21 +0000 /?p=14 From ChristianGovernance eletter, November 28, 2012 We understated Dan Savage’s terroristic spirit against Christians in our recent commentary on the BC RCMP “It Gets Better” video.

Click here to see a video compilation of Dan Savage’s militant contempt for God.

Some homosexualists discovered the website posting of our commentary on the BC RCMP “It Gets Better” video. We aren’t going to post their dishonest comments, and give them access to our website for their ignorance, but we will comment on their statements to demonstrate how deceptive the homosexualist industry is (or how incapable they are of reading and of elementary rational interaction.)

One guy asked: “How is this RCMP video anti-christian in any way?” And a female said: “This is the BIGGEST load of crap I’ve ever read! Not once in that video does a SINGLE ONE of those “homosexualists” say ANYTHING negaitve about Christians!” Another female wrote: “Show me where in the video that anyone encourages any hostile actions against Christians or anyone at all. Even implicitly hostile. Otherwise this editorial has no merit whatsoever. I’m guessing these comments are prescreened. Whatever. I made my point.”

Our commentary never addressed the content of the BC RCMP video. We talked about their allegiance by way of the video with a movement launched by a militant bigot. So much for that last female’s point! It’s easier to make a relevant point when you comment on what somebody has actually written rather than commenting on fictitious comments.

The same fellow referenced above also wrote: “I’m sure that most true Christians – and I consider myself one – would say that bullying is very un-Christ-like.” One of those females wrote: “That video was produced as a means of letting LBGT kids know that their lives will get better despite the constant bullying that they have to deal with, and that killing themselves is NOT the way out.”

These kinds of comments assume that “It Gets Better” is the only anti-bullying vehicle out there, so if you oppose it, then you oppose attempts to stop bullying. We addressed this point in our initial commentary, but these readers seem to have ignored that. Maybe that fact isn’t helpful to the points they wanted to make.

Another female wrote: “I, as a christian have never felt persecuted because of my heritage. I have known several people, however, who were severely beaten because they were gay and transgressed the gender divide.”

OK. What does that have to do with our commentary? In our commentary, we objected to the insinuations and accusations about Christians perpetrating violence against homosexuals. We didn’t make comments about violence against homosexuals in general.

It’s very difficult to engage in rational, constructive dialogue with people who can’t read, or won’t read, with government-schooled graduates who can’t think. Meanwhile, we have to put up with atheists who think they’re being funny when they write: “I’m confused by your use of the phrase “rational Christian.” Isn’t that an oxymoron?”

Acts 19 – The Power of Antithesis /acts-19-the-power-of-antithesis/ Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:27:18 +0000 /?p=18 ChristianGovernance eletter – November 15, 2012

Many Christians in positions of influence today, and many other Christians, seem preoccupied with strategies to build networks and linkages with the adherents of other religions.

This is different from the building of ordinary relationships. The latter is a good thing and the normative way to build opportunities for evangelism as well as to build civilization.The latter is problematic, and quite different from the example left for us by Paul in Acts 19.

Look at verses 23-27. Paul had such a strong reputation as a false religion destroyer that a wealthy businessman in Ephesus was terrified that his idol-building business would go belly up because of Paul.

Paul was not a synchretist. Paul was not a tolerationist. Paul was an idol-destroyer because he wanted people to turn from their idols to the true God and Redeemer. Even his public, political and economic messages were framed in the context of idol-destruction and redemption in Christ. Paul was a worldview Christian.

As a result, this influential businessman stirred up a huge riot that took the city clerk two hours to calm down. He appealed to the second most popular god in his day – and in ours – the bank account: “You know, my friends, that we receive a good income from this business.” He was afraid that all the conversions to Christianity that took place under Paul’s ministry would destroy the market for his idol-making business: “And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray large numbers of people here in Ephesus and in practically the whole province of Asia. He says that gods made by human hands are no gods at all.”

The challenge to us from this passage is obvious: Is our interaction with our communities, our neighbours, our governments accommodationist or does it demolish idols? Do we have a reputation as idol-destroyers? Do the idol-makers in our sphere of influence tremble in their boots?

It’s remarkable how much Christians expect from non-Christians! /its-remarkable-how-much-christians-expect-from-non-christians/ Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:21:32 +0000 /?p=16 ChristianGovernance eletter – November 15, 2012

Focus on the Family head, Jim Daly, seems to be a really nice guy, but the interests of the Church and society are not advanced by naivity. Note the story below with Mr. Daly’s comments, followed by our analysis.

~ ~

Focus on the Family Community – November 12, 2012
NYC Mayor Bans Food Donations?
Posted by Jim Daly

When I first heard the news, I assumed it couldn’t be true, that it was just another email hoax along the lines of the generous Nigerian benefactor who wants to wire me $5,000,000. But then I read the story from CBS News: “Glenn Richter arrived at a West Side synagogue on Monday to collect surplus bagels – fresh nutritious bagels – to donate to the poor. However, under a new edict from Bloomberg’s food police he can no longer donate the food to city homeless shelters. It’s the “no bagels for you” edict.” The story continued: “Richter has been collecting food from places like the Ohav Zedek synagogue and bringing it to homeless shelters for more than 20 years, but recently his donation, including a “cholent” or carrot stew, was turned away because the Bloomberg administration wants to monitor the salt, fat and fiber eaten by the homeless.”

“Richter said he was stunned. He said his family has eaten the same food forever and flourished.”

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been making headlines of late championing the rising threat of obesity, a significant problem to be sure. You’ll remember it was the mayor who advocated for the ban on soft drinks larger than 16 ounces.

But now every food donation will need to undergo a nutritional evaluation?

Common sense is supposed to be the genius of humanity, but lately I’m not so sure.

Is this what happens when government decides to flex more and more muscle?

To ban private food donations not only rejects and discourages generosity and goodwill but also further ingrains in the public conscience the idea that charity is best managed and monitored by government.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Where is the person of prudence?

Where is the reasonable man?

~ ~

For too many Christians today, the desire to be a nice guy has moved from attitude to theology. As a result, we try to give the enemies of Christ the benefit of the doubt as reasonable, respectable people. As a result, we keep getting caught by surprise by their assaults. This keeps us from launching an effective resistance or counter-strike. We get picked off one at a time as each of us surrenders at different points in the process. (God commands us to “believe all things” (1 Corinthians 13), but this is not a requirement to be naive.

New York mayor Bloomberg is an evil tyrant, a thug, who is happy with baby murder, and who endorsed Obama in the recent presidential election. He thinks the state should regulate the size of our drinks. He is an environmental pantheist. He is morally repugnant and an intellectual lightweight, a pappy-state elitist who wants to use the state’s billyclub to force compliance to his notions of health and safety. His latest move reported above is completely predictable. Nobody should have been surprised by such an arrogant, police state type move. Why is Glenn Richter “stunned”? Why is Jim Daly trying to interact with the move with rationality? Mayor Bloomberg is not rational. He’s a demagogue.

Gentle Christians may not like this assessment, but which analysis prepares Christians with the correct posture to combat this wickedness and injustice against the oppressed? The worst oppressor today is the growing humanist police state. Biblical prophetic condemnation and judgment against oppressors, against those who exploit their power to abuse and enslave the vulnerable, such as widows, orphans and aliens, is ruthless and uncompromising.

Christians are obligated by God to advance justice and stand with the downtrodden. This requires vigorous resistance to idolatry and passionate opposition to oppression.

In our day, this requires opposition to a growing police state. Not wasted energy contemplating imaginary concepts like “common sense.” Human depravity as taught in the Bible negates the notion of common sense. Sense is not common. We live in a world of antithesis. Sense is rooted in truth – the Bible. Humanists have rejected truth so they have no sense. Most modern Christians have abandoned this truth. Actually, it’s probably more accurate to say they’ve never heard it because seminaries a long ago stopped teaching this Biblical truth to pastoral students. Christians need to rediscover this truth and embrace it if they don’t want to continue being taken by surprise to their own detriment by Christ’s enemies.

Mr. Daly also asks: “Where is the person of prudence? Where is the reasonable man?”

Again, why do Christians expect to find prudence and reason in godless men, especially the leaders of centralist civil governments? These men embrace foolishness, idolatry, false divinity, self-righteousness. Prudence is hard enough to find among Christians, but that’s the only place we will find it.

If you want prudence and reason among your political leaders, then you’d better raise the bar and only vote for Christian political leaders.

It’s only by the undeserved grace of God that we don’t have more civil magistrates who are as wicked and irrational as Mayor Bloomberg, arrogating more power to himself, pontificating from his throne while micro-managing the smallest matters of health and safety for the ignorant masses whom he is glad to rule for their own good.

Christians who actually want to make progress in this world, advancing the Kingdom of God against the injustice and oppression of wicked tyrants, need to exercise honest, accurate Biblical analysis rather than viewing the world through false humility and rose-coloured glasses. Rose-coloured glasses haven’t saved anybody from oppression or delivered anyone from injustice.

Embrace God’s truth. Embrace the antithesis. Identify the evil for what it is. Don’t give the benefit of the doubt to those whose track record is hatred of God and oppression of the vulnerable.