Why today's Lutheran leaders are more like Jehoshaphat than David

First off, I want to clearly state that I am just as much asking the question as I am making a statement.

But before you decide, you may want to know a little more about King Jehoshaphat. Most of us know about King David, the "man after God's own heart" who failed in his lust for Bathsheba and counting his men, but for the most part was a living man of God who lived the repentant life. But Jehoshaphat...who's that?

King "J", as I will call him, was one of the Kings of Judah after the split following Solomon. He was the fourth, if I remember correctly. All things considered, he did more 'good' than 'bad'. But there were some key problems that King J was called out on.

1. King J, after enjoying some prosperity and comfort, decided to marry King Ahab's daughter. I probably don't have to remind anyone of King Ahab, but just in case, this guys was one of the most evil kings of Israel. He "hated" Macaiah, God's prophet to him [1 Kings 22:8]. He was the one married to the evil queen Jezebel and persecuted the prophet Elijah, among others. His daughter is who King J married, bringing his family aligned with his [2 Chron. 18:1].

2. He made alliances with foreign countries. King Ahab and Queen Jezebel used their influence for evil and had many foreign countries as allies. For King J to align himself in this way...did the "riches and honor" affect his judgment?

3. Jehoshaphat was walking on thin ice when he told King Ahab to "please inquire for the word of the Lord today" and yet still sided with him in battle in spite of Macaiah's Word from the Lord [2 Chron. 18.4-34]

In all of this, King J managed to end pretty well, but only because he finally heeded the call of the prophet Jehu who came to him and said, "Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Therefore the wrath of the Lord is upon you. Nevertheless, good things are found in you, in that you have removed the wooden images from the land, and have prepared your heart to seek God."

You may be asking at this point, what does all this have to do with Lutheran leaders? Great question.

In my experience, I have met my share, which is a small number in my youthful age, of Lutheran leaders, including pastors, who have done as King J in 'helping the wicked and loving those who hate the Lord' and called it "ministry."

I have recently dialogged with a high school acquaintance whose Lutheran pastor not only supports the liberal agenda of the move towards socialism in health care and other issues, but is willing to give up liberty and his church's opportunity to serve others and put the church's task in the hands of the government. And for the record, this has never worked in the past:

Watch the late economist Milton Friedman historically mark the difference between socialism vs. capitalism

So, these men are either ignorant of the past, which is scary enough, or they are so downright lazy and 'comfortable' with their present job status that they willingly side with compromise and evil for the sake of 'treading water' and keeping their current status over and against the work God and His Spirit are calling His people to engage in.

No one wants health care to remain the same. No one wants people to suffer. No one wants job loss. So the answer to these things somehow equates with the legal theft of socialism? How can a Lutheran pastor even come close to that kind of an answer? This not only robs from the current people making hard-earned money, but it further robs future generations from their creative influence in a free market society as their 'will' to succeed perishes with the nanny state mentality of "progressive" places like France. We will not only rob finances, but prosperity, by transforming us into a land which will kill prosperous growth through the death of the will of the people to create and move forward, as the nanny state will accomplish in future generations as they are taught to rely more on government and less on their responsible creativity and action - dependence. Dependence = loss of freedom.

When God's people ask for a king, his clear reply is "you won't want one, but when you finally realize that, you will be stuck with it" [1 Samuel 8, and don't fail to notice the "progressives" of Samuel's day in v.5].

Why is it that today's "Lutheran" leaders are more willing to side with liberals in order to 'evangelize' or 'love' them while they turn their backs on the people who love God and live like it? Why is it that we will make concessions, preach around texts or even skip parts of the bible in order to 'reach' and "connect" [oh, it sounds soooo good] with the greater public all the while watering down the next generation with our words and actions and ignoring those who really want to grow in their faith and move closer to the heart of God, the True God? I'm not saying I know all the politically driven answers to these questions, but I do know that they should exist and be talked about.

I haven't read these books, but they may outline some of the needed questions for a reform of our church that needs to get back to the authority of God and not man and his fallible thinking:

"Myth's, Lies and Half Truths. How misreading the Bible neutralizes Christians and empowers liberals, secularists and atheists"

"God versus Socialism"

The pdf 84 page pre-print version of "God versus Socialism"

An interview with the man who wrote "God versus Socialism"

The bottom line is charitable work has always been done through the people of God out of the overflow of gratitude in their hearts from Christ's work on the cross! The Bible clearly states that the acting government is in the business of physical protection and social orderliness [again, with the main focus on physical protection and and that of private property] and not to focus on social help or care. That is what the love of Christ should do! Isn't it ironic that the same people who decry this nation as being outright Christian and would hate to think of it as a theistic nation have to steal from Christian's beliefs in order to account for a nation that would be moved to help a fellow person in need, which is what socialistic governments propose, but never accomplish, to do.

Why is it that Christians believe that we should partner with the government rather than do the work ourselves! Are we lazy, comfortable, ignorant, ________?

Maybe the other questions that should be asked should include:

Why did Jesus not come for a political revolution, but start a church revolution? This revolution was extremely loving and grace-driven towards others while still being accountable towards each other and their sanctification..."they will know we are Christians by our ...politics...LOVE!

Why is it that the tradition of American, and most western hospitals, is derived from Christian people who stepped in to do something for people in need, as NON-PROFIT entities. Now we want to turn these entities not only into for-profit...which makes them susceptible to people involved to make a buck...but gov't run, which will only further the depravity?

Why is it that Jesus' followers didn't deny the cross and take the easy road, at least the ones who really knew Jesus?

Are we looking a lot like King Jehoshaphat yet? I hope so, because when the prophet came and told King J where he was wrong, he responded by bringing his people "back to the Lord God of their fathers" [2 Chron. 19.4]. He set judges in the land and told them not to judge for man but for the Lord and he told them to "act in the fear of the Lord, faithfully and with a loyal heart" [2 Chron. 19.9] and "behave courageously, and the Lord will be with the good" [2 Chron. 19:11].

I hope we turn and love those who love the Lord and stop enabling and empowering those against him. I hope we turn and stop the landslide into compromise and behave courageously as King J encouraged God's people to do. And I also hope that when destruction is knocking on our door, as it did later in King J's day [2 Chron. 20], we have enough fear of the Lord to turn to Him ALONE for direction and help...yes, even fast. I hope my children and my grandchildren will be Lutheran. But if not, I'd rather they be saved, and the jury is still out where the direction of our synod's leadership in certain parts of our country will go. May God bless our hearts to be strong and courageous, as so many of God's leaders have been, in spite of their shortcomings, in HIStory.

Health Care, yes or no?

Often a hot button of debate these days, this issue seeps deeply into the hearts, emotions and lives of everyone around us. Freedom without responsibility is only Darwinism, so freedom in health care with the government in control...might look eerily similar. Some would question what to do. Some would propose that there are no real good answers. Some would disagree.

February 2010

Paul Ryan

Member
U.S. House of Representatives

Health Care in a Free Society

PAUL RYAN is in his sixth term as a member of Congress, representing Wisconsin's First Congressional District. He is the ranking member of the House Budget Committee and a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee. A graduate of Miami University in Ohio, he and his wife Janna have three children and live in Janesville, Wisconsin.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on January 13, 2010, in Washington, D.C., at an event sponsored by Hillsdale College's Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship.

SOMEONE once said that before there was the New Deal, there was the Wisconsin Deal. In my home state, the University of Wisconsin was an early hotbed of progressivism, whose goal was to reorder society along lines other than those of the Constitution. The best known Wisconsin progressive in American politics was Robert LaFollette. “Fighting Bob,” as he was called, was a Republican—as was Theodore Roosevelt, another early progressive. Today we tend to associate progressivism mostly with Democrats, and trace it back to Woodrow Wilson. But it had its roots in both parties.

The social and political programs of the progressives came in on two great waves: the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s. Today, President Obama often invokes progressivism and hopes to generate its third great wave of public policy. In thinking about what this would mean, we need look no farther than the health care reform program he is promoting along with the leadership in Congress.

Let me say here at the beginning that even though survey after survey shows that 75 percent or more of Americans are satisfied with the quality of their health care, no one I know in Congress denies that health care reform is needed. Everyone understands that health care in our country has grown needlessly expensive, and that some who want coverage cannot afford it. The ongoing debate over health care, then, is not about whether there should be reform; it is about what the principle of that reform ought to be.

Under the terms of our Constitution, every individual has a right to care for their health, just as they have a right to eat. These rights are integral to our natural right to life—and it is government's chief purpose to secure our natural rights. But the right to care for one's health does not imply that government must provide health care, any more than our right to eat, in order to live, requires government to own the farms and raise the crops.

Government's constitutional obligations in regard to protecting such rights are normally met by establishing the conditions for free markets—markets which historically provide an abundance of goods and services, at an affordable cost, for the largest number. When free markets seem to be failing to meet this goal—and I would argue that the delivery of health care today is an example of where this is the case—government, rather than seeking to supply the need itself, should look to see if its own interventions are the root of the problem, and should make adjustments to unleash competition and choice.

With good reason, the Constitution left the administration of public health—like that of most public goods—decentralized. If there is any doubt that control of health care services should not have been placed in the federal government, we need only look at the history of Medicare and Medicaid—a history in which fraud has proliferated despite all efforts to stop it and failure to control costs has become a national nightmare. In 1966 the cost of Medicare to the taxpayers was about $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that it would cost $12 billion (adjusted for inflation) by 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was nearly nine times that—$107 billion. By 2009 Medicare costs reached $427 billion, with Medicaid boosting that by an additional $255 billion. And this doesn't take into account the Medicaid expansion in last year's “stimulus.”

The health care reform bills that emerged from the House and the Senate late last year would only exacerbate this crisis. The federal takeover of health care that those bills represent would subsume approximately one-sixth of our national economy. Combined with spending at all levels, government would then control about 50 percent of total national production.

The good news is that we have a choice. There are three basic models for health care delivery that are available to us: (1) today's business-government partnership or “crony capitalism” model, in which bureaucratized insurance companies monopolize the field in most states; (2) the progressive model promoted by the Obama administration and congressional leaders, in which federal bureaucrats tell us which services they will allow; and (3) the model consistent with our Constitution, in which health care providers compete in a free and transparent market, and in which individual consumers are in control.

We are urged today—out of compassion—to support the progressive model; but placing control of health care in the hands of government bureaucrats is not compassionate. Bureaucrats don't make decisions about health care according to personal need or preference; they ration resources according to a dollar-driven social calculus. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the administration's point people on health care, advocates what he calls a “whole life system”—a system in which government makes treatment decisions for individuals using a statistical formula based on average life expectancy and “social usefulness.” In keeping with this, the plans that recently emerged from Congress have a Medicare board of unelected specialists whose job it would be to determine the program's treatment protocols as a method of limiting costs.

President Obama said in December: “If we don't pass [this health care reform legislation]...the federal government will go bankrupt, because Medicare and Medicaid are on a trajectory that are [sic] unsustainable....” On first hearing, this argument appears ludicrous: We must stop the nation from going broke by enacting a program costing $800 billion or more in its first decade alone? On the other hand, if the President means what he says, there is only one way to achieve his stated goal under the new program: through deep and comprehensive government rationing of health care.

The idea that the government should make decisions about how long people should live and who should be denied care is something that Americans find repugnant. As is true of the supply of every service or product, the supply of health care is finite. But it is a mistake to conclude that government should ration it, rather than allowing individuals to order their needs and allocate their resources among competing options. Those who are sick, special needs patients, and seniors are the ones who will be most at risk when the government involves itself in these difficult choices—as government must, once it takes upon itself management of American health care.

The very idea of government-run health care conflicts with the American idea of a free society and the constitutional principles underlying it—the principles of individual rights and free markets. And from a practical perspective it makes no sense, given that our current health care system is the best in the world—even drawing patients from other advanced countries that have suffered by adopting the government-run model.

But if one begins with the idea that health care reform to reduce costs should be guided by the principles of economic and political liberty, what would such reform look like? Four changes to the current system come immediately to mind.

One, we should equalize the tax treatment of people paying for health care by ending the current discrimination against those who don't get health insurance from their jobs—in other words, everyone paying for health care should receive the same tax benefits.

Two, we need high-risk insurance pools in the states so that those with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage that is not prohibitively expensive, and so that costs in non-high-risk pools are stabilized. To see the value of this, consider a pool of 200 people in which six have pre-existing heart disease or cancer. Rates for everyone will be through the roof. But if the six are placed in a high-risk pool and ensured coverage at an affordable rate, the risk profile of the larger pool is stabilized and coverage for the remaining 194 people is driven down.

Three, we need to unlock existing health care monopolies by letting people purchase health insurance across state lines—just as they do car insurance and other goods and services. This is a simple and obvious way to reduce costs.

Four, we need to establish transparency in terms of costs and quality of health care. In Milwaukee, an MRI can cost between $400 and $4,000, and a bypass surgery between $4,700 and $100,000. Unless the consumer is able to compare prices and quality of services—and unless he has an incentive to base choices on that information, as he does in purchasing other goods and services—there is not really a free market. It would go a long way to solve our health care problems to recreate one.

These four measures would empower consumers and force providers—insurers, doctors, and hospitals—to compete against each other for business. This works in other sectors of our economy, and it will work with health care.

So why can't we agree on them? The answer is that the current health care debate is not really about how we can most effectively bring down costs. It is a debate less about policy than about ideology. It is a debate over whether we should reform health care in a way compatible with our Constitution and our free society, or whether we should abandon our free market economic model for a full-fledged European-style social welfare state. This, I believe, is the true goal of those promoting government-run health care.

If we go down this path, creating entitlement after entitlement and promising benefits that can never be delivered, America will become like the European Union: a welfare state where most people pay few or no taxes while becoming dependent on government benefits; where tax reduction is impossible because more people have a stake in welfare than in producing wealth; where high unemployment is a way of life and the spirit of risk-taking is smothered by webs of regulation.

America today is not as far from this tipping point as we might think. While exact and precise measures cannot be made, there are estimates that in 2004, 20 percent of households in the U.S. were receiving about 75 percent of their income from the federal government, and that another 20 percent were receiving nearly 40 percent of their income from federal programs. All in all, about 60 percent of U.S. households were receiving more government benefits and services, measured in dollars, than they were paying back in taxes. It has also been estimated that President Obama's first budget alone raises this level of “net dependency” to 70 percent.

Looked at in this way, I see health care reform of the kind promoted by the Obama administration and congressional leaders as part of a crusade against the American idea. This is a dramatic charge, but the only alternative is that they are ignorant of the consequences of their proposed programs. The national health care exchange created by their legislation, together with its massive subsidies for middle-income earners, would represent the greatest expansion of the welfare state in our country in a generation—and possibly in history. According to recent analysis, the plan would provide subsidies that average a little less than 20 percent of the income of people earning up to 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. In other words, as many as 110 million Americans could claim this new entitlement within a few years of its implementation. In addition to the immediate massive increase in dependency this would bring on, the structure of the subsidies—whereby they fade out as income rises—would impose a marginal tax penalty that would act as a disincentive to work, increasing dependency even more.

And before I conclude, allow me to clear up a misperception about insurance exchanges: it makes absolutely no difference whether we have 50 state exchanges rather than a federal exchange, as long as the federal government is where the subsidies for consumers will be located. In other words, despite what some seem to believe, both the House and the Senate versions of health care reform set up a system in which, if you are eligible and you want a break on your insurance premium, it is the federal government that will provide it while telling you what kind of insurance you have to buy. In this sense, the idea of state exchanges instead of a federal exchange is a distinction without a difference.

* * *

Americans take pride in self-government, which entails providing for their own well-being and the well-being of their families in a free society. In exchange for this, the promoters of government-run health care would make them passive subjects, dependent on handouts and far more concerned about security than liberty. At the heart of the conflict over heath care reform, as I said at the beginning, are two incompatible understandings of America: one is based on the principles of progressivism, and would place more and more aspects of our lives under the administration of unelected “experts” in federal bureaucracies; the other sees America as a society of free individuals under a Constitution that severely limits what the federal government can rightfully do.

We have seen many times over the past 100 years that the American people tend to be resistant to the progressive view of how we should reform our system of government—and I believe we are seeing this again today. Americans retain the Founders' view that a government that seeks to go beyond its high but limited constitutional role of securing equal rights and establishing free markets is not progressive at all in the literal sense of that word—rather it is reactionary. Such a government seeks to privilege some Americans at the expense of others—which is precisely what the American Revolution was fought to prevent.

Americans understand that the problems facing our health care system today, real as they are, can be addressed without nationalizing one-sixth of the American economy and moving us past the tipping point toward a European-style social welfare state. They know that we can solve these problems while at the same time remaining a free society and acting consistently with the principles that have made us the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth. It is our duty now as their representatives to come together and do so.

“Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.”

Lukewarm church anyone?

Just revisited this vlog and laughed again. If any of you have experienced a lukewarm church setting, you may enjoy too.

http://www.p4cm.com/p4cm/pastorjustinVlog/benefits_of_going_to_Lukewarm_church

You may have to "scroll up" on the page if you only see comments. God bless.

Saul to Paul?

In some ways, this seems to help me understand why Paul is so acutely connected to the moving and discernment of the Spirit. The 4 min. testimony points us to the need of the good news of Jesus:http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=107d88c7e8af27b7a0b0

Hard times

I have only listened to the first 10 minutes, but I have as feeling that this man is going to have some great things to say in this hour long presentation. I have heard him before and he is not afraid to speak the Word.

Listen if you dare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shxQcczYuAA

The Reformation of the 16th Century - Answers in Genesis

The Reformation of the 16th Century - Answers in Genesis

Posted using ShareThis

Something to celebrate? Try His Word, Redemption, Forgiveness and Love

A good and timely article from a judge that is actually judging rightly [and if you think that statement too judgmental, then "thanks for your judgment!"]:

A Judge’s Judgment

ShareThisPublished November 24th, 2009 in Feedback, Ministry Updates

Here is an email from our friend in Louisiana, the retired judge Darrell White. Judge White is a Creation Museum “lifetime member” and is founder and president of the Retired Judges of America. He helped Dr. Terry Mortenson and Steven Fazekas of our staff last week in Louisiana at a booth that AiG had set up at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS).

Here is the report Judge White filed, which we are posting a few days after the ETS meeting. You see, November 24 is the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species:

Many Americans are letting the anniversary go by without giving it a second thought. This month marks the 150th anniversary since the original publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859. It is the book whose evolutionary theme concerning man’s origin is—at least for the present time—dominant in America’s science classrooms. And, undeniably, at this stage in history, Darwin’s “nothing-created-everything” fairy tale worldview is a source of confusion for many professing Christians.

I was privileged to spend that day with Dr. Terry Mortenson and Steven Fazekas helping staff AiG’s booth at the Evangelical Theological Society’s (ETS) annual meeting in New Orleans. Free copies of Ken Ham’s insightful new book Already Gone were given away to conference participants, and many other helpful creation resources were distributed. Quite a few of those who visited the AiG booth confided with obvious sincerity: “You creation ministry folks really do need to be at these meetings!”

Especially gratifying was the opportunity to observe close-up as Mortenson and Fazekas—both knowledgeable creationists—skillfully answered tough questions regarding science and the authority of Scripture. For example, to one inquisitive seminary student’s question about age-dating methods, Dr. Mortenson used his wristwatch’s chronometer feature to vividly illustrate the three assumptions invariably associated with all such methods used to date fossils:

1. Known initial boundary conditions;2. Isolated system; and3. Constant rate of process (see The Defenders’ Bible by Henry Morris, appendix #5)

Illuminated by fresh insight, this conference participant eagerly sought additional creation resources to deepen her understanding.

Significantly, attendees were distributed a flyer listing twelve “Affirmations and Denials Essential to a Consistent Christian (Biblical) Worldview” and an invitation to sign on. Time will tell how many support this important declaration. It reminded me of the challenge issued years ago by my own Sunday school teacher—himself a judge—to this impressionable youth: “If you were arrested and put on trial for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?”

While Origin of Species month is ending, my own prayer is that AiG’s presence within centers of influence such as ETS will grow such that, in the days ahead, we can expect many more believers to find the moral courage to uphold the authority of God’s Word, beginning with the very first verse. Our children and grandchildren are counting on us!
—Judge Darrell White (Retired)

For more about Charles Darwin, be sure to watch our new DVD called The Evolution of Darwin: His Impact. You can find it in our online store.