"The Good Life begins in a discerning heart shaped by God's revelation as the standard of all thinking about the measured realities of the world we inhabit as image-bearers of God with unique capacities for creative activities and special relationships in ordered communities that are protected by justice and structured for Shalom."  Pete Lackey

John Stott, a significant life

The following is a Breakpoint Daily Commentary 

John Stott
RIP

August 02, 2011

Soon after he became a columnist for the New York Times, David Brooks wrote that people were “misinformed” about Evangelicals. Part of the reason, Brooks reasoned, lay in whom the media chose to speak for us: choices that made as much sense as having “Britney Spears and Larry Flynt discuss D. H. Lawrence.”

So he introduced his readers to an evangelical whom many had never heard of but was, in Brooks’ words, “actually important,” John Stott.

Stott died last week at the age of ninety, once again with a very favorable eulogy in the New York Times. We will miss him in more ways than one.

In some respects this broadcast can be traced back to Stott. Over 30 years ago, I spoke at the London Lectures in Contemporary Christianity, an event founded and hosted by Stott. I spoke about the connection between culture, conscience, and crime. This was during the period when I was beginning to understand the question of worldview and its relationship to Christian mission.

I am far from the only Christian influenced by Stott in this way. In 1967, at a time when most Evangelicals were content to remain safe behind the walls of their churches, ignoring the larger world around them, Stott wrote a book entitled, Our Guilty Silence.

In it Stott made the case that because the Gospel is “Good News” we are under an obligation to share it with others. This sounds obvious, but in 1967 this kind of witness, and that kind of engagement with the larger society, was the last thing many Christians wanted to do. They much preferred their comfortable worship and cultural isolation.

Among its many benefits, this isolation didn’t require them to think too much, especially when it came to matters of faith. So five years later, Stott wrote Your Mind Matters, a book whose title could serve as a mission statement for this broadcast.

In it Stott criticized the “spirit of anti-intellectualism” that pervaded Evangelicalism at the time.  This “spirit” often produced “zeal without knowledge” that was mistaken for Christian maturity. True Christian maturity is impossible without understanding what it is we believe and how it applies to our lives. The connection between Stott’s work and ours should, again, be unmistakable.

That I cared about prisoners drew John Stott and me close together.  He was over and over the conscience of Evangelicalism, reminding us of our duty to the poor and the suffering.

Stott’s central role in the 1974 Lausanne Covenant, which brought the Evangelical world out of its self-imposed exile, caused Billy Graham, when he was named one of the most 100 influential people in Time magazine in 2005, to say that Stott deserved the designation instead. As Graham told Time, “I can’t think of anyone who has been more effective in introducing so many people to a biblical world view.”

Like I said, we will miss Stott in many ways. That’s because in many ways we are back where Stott started in the 1960s. For too many evangelicals, faith has become a matter of feeling in which how we feel takes precedence over what we know. There is no shortage of disheartening data documenting how little many professing Christians know about their own faith.

Stott made my recent book The Faith possible. The current state of the church makes it and others like it necessary.  The question today is: have we learn from John Stott or do Christians prefer silence?

BreakPoint Daily Commentary

BreakPoint Daily Commentary

A Fool's Tower
Debt, Default and Worldview

July 28, 2011

The clock is ticking. The United States is on the verge of default. Congress and the president seem unable to come together and find an agreement avoiding an economic catastrophe.

How in the world did we get into this fix? Well, it didn’t happen overnight. It’s been coming for a generation. For years, fiscal conservatives have warned about the dangers of out-of-control borrowing and spending, but current and previous presidents and congresses have ignored them, rolling up a massive national debt.

The bigger question is why did the American people stand for this? The answer is painfully clear. Because the people themselves were busy borrowing and spending like fiends.

Americans as a rule used to be a frugal people. They believed in the Protestant work ethic — an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay, save for a rainy day, don’t go deep into debt. But something changed, and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman — whom I respect though often disagree with — hit the nail on the head.

“The generation that came of age in the last 50 years,” he writes, “will be remembered most for the incredible bounty and freedom it received from its parents and the incredible debt burden and constraints it left on its kids.” Friedman calls this the “clash of generations.” The greatest generation scrimped and saved; their kids, the boomers, went on a big shopping binge.

This is what happens when a false worldview comes home to roost. Remember that it was in the 1960s that existentialism and relativism took over college campuses. If there truly were no God and life were devoid of meaning, well, live it up while you can. Throw off the burden of moral restraints, of civic duty and responsibility. Find fulfillment in pleasure and self-actualization; not in service to others or in building a good and just society. Thus was ushered in what Christopher Lasch called the age of narcissism.

There’s only one problem with the existentialist/relativistic worldview and the self-centeredness it breeds: It doesn’t work. It doesn’t foster the self-discipline, prudence, and moral character that individuals and societies need in order to flourish.

No wonder then, according to the Department of Commerce, when adjusting for inflation Americans spent more than they earned in most months from 2000 through 2008. Even without adjusting for inflation, monthly personal saving was usually less than three percent. This means people were borrowing more than they could repay.

Jesus asked the right question. Who would who set out to build a tower who did not “first sit down and estimate the cost” (Luke 14:28). Actually, we’re worse off than that. We borrowed heavily to build the tower, only to find out now it is about to be repossessed!

Not all the news is bad, though. Since 2008, Americans have awakened to reality and begun to spend less and save more. We’ve put off that vacation, coaxed a few thousand more miles out of the old car. We’ve tightened our belts. Now it’s time to make sure the government does the same.

Are folks beginning to figure out that we’ve been building a tower on a false worldview? That chasing self-fulfillment and living for the moment lead inevitably to moral and economic poverty? Well, we’ll see.

But it’s a fair question, and we, the Church, must raise it again and again. For our good and for the good of all.

Relics and People: Yes to One, No to the Other

 clipped from campaign.r20.constantcontact.com

Relics and People
Yes to One, No to the Other

April 12, 2011

 

A recent BBC headline read "Jordan battles to regain 'priceless' Christian Relics." What followed is a story about an archeological find that could "change our understanding of how Jesus was crucified and resurrected, and how Christianity was born."

 

It's a fascinating story with an ironic twist.

 

Like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the latest sensational archeological discovery was found by a Bedouin in a cave. The Jordanian government claims that, following a flash flood a few years ago, the Bedouin found two niches exposed by the flood. He opened the niches and absconded with their content to Israel. The Bedouin claims that the relics have been in his family for a century.

 

Regardless of which account is true, everyone agrees on the spectacular nature of the find: 70 books, each containing five-to-fifteen lead pages bound by lead rings, what scholars call "codices." While the writing, which is in a code based on ancient Hebrew, is still being translated, the images have prompted some to speculate that the find will "perhaps be more significant than the Dead Sea Scrolls."

 

The most striking image features a depiction of the walls of Jerusalem with a Roman-style cross and a tomb in the foreground. Another image depicts a menorah, which first-century Jews were forbidden to depict. Phillip Davies of Sheffield University told the BBC that what is being depicted is a crucifixion outside the city walls.

 

Sound familiar? Other scholars noted that the books were found "approximately" where Christians fleeing persecution in Jerusalem were said to have gone. Little wonder that people are calling it potentially "the major discovery of Christian history," and are giddy at the prospect of holding "objects that might have been held by the early saints of the Church."

 

Still, I can't help but notice a huge irony in this story: While people are arguing and fighting over repatriating Christian relics to the Middle East, no one seems to care about the flight of Christian people from the same region.

 

Nina Shea, who has been sounding the alarm about the fate of Christians in the Middle East for years, sums up their plight this way: "Unless something happens fast there is not going to be a future for Christianity in the Middle East."

 

Paul Marshall of the Hudson Institute concurs. Increased violence against Christians and government indifference (or worse, collaboration), means that Christian communities in most of the region "are beginning to go, and in a couple of decades, unless the situation changes...They will die out."

 

Even places like Egypt where Christians are too numerous to "die out," they will face increasing hostility, which, in turn, will encourage further emigration. If you want to see what Middle Eastern Christianity looks like, your best bet will be Southern California or Toronto, not Bethlehem.

 

We find ourselves in an absurd situation where 2,000-year-old Christian relics are more welcome in the lands where Christianity originated than the descendants of those original Christians.

 

While I welcome this convincing evidence of how Christianity was born there, I am even more interested in seeing that it doesn't die there.

 

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Surgical Pregnancy Intervension vs. Legal Fetal Homicide

Rhetoric:  (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display;bombast.

This is not the classical definition of rhetoric, but it is what the term usually means in common parlance.  Classically, rhetoric is "the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience."  Why bring this up, you may ask?  Because ideas have consequences.  And if our public discourse is needlessly bogged down by distracting connotations, we we end up talking or even yelling at one another rather than communicating with each other.


The Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life discussion is a case in point.  This is not to say that using the right words or winning the argument (as in verbal fight)  is the final point.  The final point is one of grave consequence.  It is to say that we should be mindful of our words and mindful of our audience.  Lives hang in the balance, the lives of women, men, children, and families, the very basis of society.


With that in mind, I want to persuade the pro-choice individual to change your mind about abortion.  And I have a very specific way of arguing that I hope will persuade you to change your thinking on this issue.  There is only one question that must be answered concerning abortion: 

"What is the unborn?"   

Illustration:

Imagine you are standing at the sink doing the dishes and your young son or daughter walks up behind you and asks, "Can I kill this?"  Before you even turn around, what is the first question that pops into your head?  "What is it?"  It makes all the difference if it is a spider, the neighbor's puppy, or the little kid from next door.  So it is with abortion.  We must first answer the question, "What is the unborn."  If the unborn is not an innocent human being, then no justification for abortion is necessary.  If the unborn is an innocent human being, then no justification for abortion is adequate.

Option 1:  The unborn is not an innocent human being.  If this is the case, then objecting to someone having an abortion is like objecting that someone had their appendix removed or tonsils taken out.  Do with the unborn as you please.


Option 2:  The unborn is an innocent human being.  The unjustified taking of innocent human life is wrong.  Abortion is the unjustified taking of innocent human life.  Therefore, abortion is wrong.  None of the reasons justifying abortion are adequate if it is the case that the unborn is an innocent human being.


So how can we answer this question?  Some may object that abortion doesn't kill anything, that the unborn is merely a lump of tissue.  But this is simply not true.  The "tissue" is growing inside the woman.  It's getting bigger.  That's the problem.  Abortion takes it out and kills it, stops it from growing.  Abortion does kills something. 


Some may object that the unborn is merely a part of the woman's body to do with as she pleases.  This objection fails on scientific grounds.  The unborn has a unique genetic signature from the point the egg and the sperm join.  This DNA signature is unique to every human being.  It is unique to every unborn.  As such the unborn is a unique biological entity, distinct from the woman who carries it.


There are 4 ways the unborn (pre-natal) are said to differ from the born (post-natal):  Size, Level of development, Environment, and Dependency.  This is easily remembered by the acrostic S.L.E.D.  Any one of them is adequate to demonstrate the humanity of the unborn.  Even so, I will show that all 4 categories are inadequate to de-humanize the unborn and thus the unborn is an innocent human being. 


Size.  The unborn are much smaller than born human beings.  I am smaller than Andre the Giant.  Does this make me a non-human being?  I was smaller as a child than I am now.  Was I a non-human being when I was 2 years old?  Are little people not really human beings just because they are smaller than others?  Size is irrelevant to our humanity.


Level of development.  The unborn are at a lower stage of development than the post born.  A two year old is at a lower stage of development than a 7 year old.  A teenager is at a lower stage of development than a young adult.  Are they not human beings irregardless of their level of development?  Level of development is irrelevant to our humanity.


Environment.  The unborn are in a different environment than the born.  I am not in the same location as you reading this.  People living in Africa, or Tibet, or the International Space Station live in different environments.  What does that have to do with them being human?  Environment is irrelevant to our humanity.


Dependency.  The unborn are dependent on the woman for survival.  They are not viable on their own.  Dialysis patients are dependent for survival.  Scuba divers are dependent upon their compressed air.  Most children are dependent on their parents for several years before they could actually survive on their own.  My best friend has a pacemaker that keeps him alive.  None of these post born individuals lose their value as human beings due to their dependency.  Dependency is irrelevant to our humanity.

The answer to the question, "What is the unborn?" is that the unborn is a human being.  Therefore, no justification for abortion is adequate.


Premises:
1. The unjustified taking of innocent human life is wrong. 
2. The unborn are innocent human beings.  
3. Abortion is the unjustified taking of innocent human life.  
Conclusion:
Therefore, abortion is wrong.

If you are pro-choice, you must show that any of premises 1, 2, or 3 are false.  This is not a rhetorical trick.  It is a reasonable argument that warrants serious attention.  In order to invalidate this argument, you must invalidate the reasons which make up the argument.

I'm not trying to beat you up for your point of view.  I am trying to convince you that you hold an unsupportable viewpoint so that you will change your mind concerning abortion. 

The Abortion President

Dear Friend of Life, 

Just moments ago, I got off a media call with Rep. Jim Jordan, a pro-life warrior in the House who has been with us in this fight to defund Planned Parenthood every step of the way.

Our message to the media was loud and clear:  President Obama and his pro-abortion allies in the Senate are prepared to shut down the entire government to ensure that Planned Parenthood continues to receive hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars each year.

We told reporters from all across the country that the truth is that the President sees federal funding for the nation's number one abortion provider as a bigger priority than paychecks for federal workers and funding for our military. 

Make no doubt about it: President Obama is the Abortion President.

Your SBA List has been fighting him and the entire pro-abortion lobby to end taxpayer funding of America's abortion giant.

And the other side is throwing everything they have at us—even making up lies to deceive the American public about what Planned Parenthood really does. Yesterday, pro-abortion radical Rep. Louise Slaughter even had the audacity to say that our pro-life leaders in the House of Representatives are "here to kill women."

Clearly, the pro-abortion forces are in a frenzy—and they are well-funded.  The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and their friends have managed to raise $150,000 in just days.

We're trying to keep up, but I have to be honest with you: We are at the most critical point of this debate and our war chest is running on empty.

Please make an emergency contribution to help the SBA List continue to expose Planned Parenthood and keep pressure on Congress to defund this abortion giant.

The Susan B. Anthony List team needs your support to continue working non-stop to educate the public and Congress about Planned Parenthood's awful truth: this billion dollar business is about making money through abortion, not about women's health.

Here's a recap of where we've done:

• Co-founded the Expose Planned Parenthood coalition to promote the work of Live Action Films and get out Lila Rose's crucial videos exposing Planned Parenthood's willingness to cover up alleged human trafficking of young girls.
  
• Travelled across 11 states on the Women Speak Out: Expose Planned Parenthood Bus Tour with Lila Rose to support and call on Representatives depending on their vote for the Pence Amendment.
  
• Ran radio and television ads in support of seven brave pro-life Representatives who were being attacked by Planned Parenthood. 
  
• Ran a targeted media campaign featuring former clinic director for Planned Parenthood, Abby Johnson, to make sure Washington politicians couldn't miss the truth about Planned Parenthood.
  
• Secured statements from ten 2012 Republican presidential hopefuls, getting them on the record supporting the defunding of Planned Parenthood.
  
• Launched a print-ad campaign exposing Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's racist and eugenic views on the same day Planned Parenthood activists convened in D.C. to lobby Congress.

Will you please make an emergency contribution to help us carry on our efforts?

I wouldn't ask if we didn't need it Travis, but trust me, television, radio, and print ads, especially in the Washington, D.C. area, do not come cheap.

And there is still much to be done.

Help the SBA List reach the finish line in this fight.

Now is the time to defund Planned Parenthood.

For Life, 
Marjorie 

Marjorie Dannenfelser
President, Susan B. Anthony List
www.sba-list.org

Putting the Tsunami into Perspective

Putting the Tsunami into Perspective Elliot Miller  The following article is adapted from the CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL, volume 28, issue 1 (2005).  Subscribe today and enjoy thought-provoking and equipping content delivered to your door!     We are all riveted to our televisions the past several days as we watch the devastation of the nation of Japan after it experienced a 9.0 earthquake off its Sendai coast last Friday. As more than 1,000 bodies wash ashore, and fears mount of a potential leak of nuclear material after a possible nuclear plant meltdown, it's natural for people to ask why God allowed such a horrific tragedy. Natural disasters, wars, man-made tragedies (9/11, the Holocaust) continue as history unfolds but biblical answers to spiritual questions regarding them don't change. Back in an early 2005 issue of the Christian Research Journal, editor-in-chief Elliot Miller wrote an article giving biblical perspective to the then Indonesian Tsunami of December 2004. We hope this article equips you with a cogent and biblical explanation of how we should view natural disasters.            When I first heard news of the tsunami that struck the Indian Ocean region on December 26 it stopped me in my tracks. "This could be the biggest natural disaster of our time," I thought. On that first day the estimated death toll was "only" around 14,000, but as I write six weeks later it is approaching 300,000.            Who has not been profoundly affected by the video captures of the approaching wall of water, the apocalyptic pictures and reports of devastation and death, the seemingly capricious fates of those who were taken and those who were spared, the heart-wrenching losses suffered by natives of the region as well as visitors, and the unbelievable evil of those who have seized orphaned children to sell them into the sex slave trade? Who has not been moved by the heroism of those who did not think of their own safety in order to save (or try to save) the lives of others, and the compassionate efforts of people from around the world to help those who have been struck?            Whenever a major disaster hits, whether natural or man made, the question is raised about God's role in it. An Internet search for the words "tsunami" and "God" yields Web pages that contain every conceivable answer to this question. For some people the disaster is an occasion for embracing or returning to faith in God; for others it is an occasion for losing faith or feeling justified in their unbelief. Comments such as the following caught my attention:            "Amid tidal waves or tsunami, earthquakes or floods, outbreaks of disease or other natural disasters, where is God?"            "Thanks for the tsunami, God! Do you realize what God just did?"            "Is the tsunami God's judgment?"            "Tsunami: God's Anger Revealed."            "Tsunami = God's wrath on non-Christians. "            "God used what unsaved Chinese people call a 'tsunami' to wipe out over 100,000 unbelievers in one fell swoop."            "Did God send this tsunami because of the paganisms so prevalent in South Asia…as only a hint of the cataclysm that is yet to come—the holy judgment of God?"            "Tsunami Disaster—A judgment from God to the Islamic nations!"            "How can a merciful God allow such disaster and suffering?"            "God killed more than 150,000 people with a tsunami....This terrible tragedy only proves one simple thing: There is no God, only religious rhetoric."             Evil and human suffering do pose a problem for faith in God. There is no reason, however, to see the occurrence of a tsunami or any other disaster that takes its toll on human life as a direct act of God. The earthquake that displaced ocean water and produced the tsunami resulted from the very structure and normal operation of God's creation, in which geologic plates grind against each other and eventually shift to release tension. We know from observation and experience that disturbances in nature often occur, sometimes with tragic results for human beings and other forms of life.            If anyone is going to believe in God in the first place, it has to be against the backdrop of this knowledge of our perilous universe; in other words, one's reasons for believing in God must withstand the reality of evil and human suffering. The occurrence of any particular disaster, then, should have no effect on one's belief in God.            If one knows that God is, and what He is truly like, no event should cast doubt on that knowledge. Natural revelation affirms that God exists; biblical revelation confirms what God is like. The account of the fall of man in Genesis 3 reveals that God is not responsible for human suffering, and the Bible's record of His acts of mercy—especially in the cross of Christ—assure us that He is a God of love. We know that this is so despite the existence of tsunamis and earthquakes or terrorists and holocausts. Scripture also assures us that a time will come when suffering, sorrow, and death will be no more (Rev. 21:4).            I am not denying that God sometimes does use natural disasters to execute His judgment. The problem, however, is one of presumption: the canon of Scripture is closed and no one today speaks with the authority of the biblical prophets; no one can say with certainty that the tsunami or any other disaster is an example of God's judgment. In God's sovereign purpose, there can be many reasons for allowing humans to suffer, and it is not always as a punishment for their sins (consider the example of Job). If we proclaim that the tsunami is a judgment of God against pagans or Muslims, we might find ourselves having something in common with the Jews Jesus rebuked: "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish" (Luke 13:2–3 NIV).  —Elliot Miller Subscribe to the CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL TODAY!       We want to hear from you! We are collecting feedback on the Christian Research Journal. Please send us your comments on our articles, subjects you'd like to see covered, or why you subscribe. Please contact us at journal@equip.org.

How the New resistance Can Win the Culture War

Rick Pearcey writes this excellent article. Politics is a complicated affair, yet Pearcey simply articulates the basis of the choice before us. The choice is between two views of reality and how they play out politically. And the choice is, "It's a vision that declares independence under God instead of dependence under the state." Reminds me of William Penn's famed statement, "Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants." It really is that simple.

 clipped from www.pearceyreport.com

"Angry Mobs," Tea Parties, Town Halls Represent Enduring American Mainstream 
How the New Resistance Can Win the Culture War 

By J. Richard Pearcey

Despite what has been reported in the formerly mainstream media, the New Resistance in America -- the tea parties, the town halls, protests on Capitol Hill and so on -- is to be welcomed and not cast aside as "extreme." The "angry mobs" and "unruly crowds" are actually signs of health, sanity and hope.

What these uppity folk are telling us is that, despite years of miseducation and inattention, millions of ordinary people have not forgotten who they are as Americans. Even more, this resistance suggests that significant numbers of Americans may be on a path to rediscovering something rather exceptional.

By "exceptional" is meant not just who they are in their national identity, but who they are as creatures of resistance, hardwired that way by the Creator himself. And to the degree that this New Resistance succeeds, to that degree prospects are increased for victory in the cultural and political war for human freedom and human dignity.

The New Resistance is here and shows no sign of going away. The following three factors help explain why this is good for America -- and the world.

The Precipitating Factor: This first factor consists of the rise of Barack Obama and the decline of the Republican Party. One of the primary reasons Obama won the election of 2008 is that he stepped into a vacuum of power and vision created by the collapse of the Republican Party. He did this by presenting himself 1) as an alternative to any Republican, 2) as a non-threatening "no sudden moves" African-American who could heal the nation, and 3) as a man with a more coherent -- and therefore more powerful -- vision for America. Generally speaking, a man with a vision beats a man with a resume.

But after coming into office, Obama made several mistakes. For example, he has revealed himself not just as an alternative to "any Republican," but as an alternative to basic American principle. Not just to George Bush, as it were, but to George Washington. Also, he dropped the "no sudden moves" approach for a "no slow moves" approach: Crisis! Crisis! Crisis! has become his modus operandi. And finally, he has voiced an alien, grating, post-American vision of this country, in favor of a religiously secularist and centralized federal power from which he promises milk and honey, jobs and health-care, and so on.

The Republican collapse began after the Reagan administration. Reagan understood that American liberty is rooted in a particular political philosophy. It's a vision that declares independence under God instead of dependence under the state. Because Reagan understood there is a vision-for-freedom, he also understood the need to be able to explain and articulate that vision-for-freedom. Unfortunately, then-Vice President George Bush (the elder), despite eight years of seeing Reagan in action, and of seeing that kind of vision win landslide victories at the polls, never seemed to appreciate "the vision thing."

And so the Reagan vision of Americans knowing the "freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers" (from "A Time for Choosing") would be lost. In addition, the rationale and ability to articulate that vision would be lost. More than that, resources to stand up against a contrary vision would be lost -- even if that contrary vision is false.

The GOP's dilemma is that it is double-minded. On one side, some embrace a secular vision that sees the Creator of the Founders and of the Declaration as a kind of nice "religious" touch or "values" touch. But also in the GOP are those who show an appreciation of the connection between a real Creator and real freedom in the real world.

What the New Resistance senses is that neither the single-minded secularism of the Democrats nor the double-minded imbalance of the Republicans is an adequate foundation for freedom, whether we are talking about July 1776, March 2010 or 100 years from now.

The Predisposing Factor: Clearly, there is something more at work here than merely a transient response to a recent election. And that "something more" speaks to the fact that the word American actually means something. It is not a mere "value symbol" that we can redefine at will. Its meaning does not shift with polling data, election results or skin color.

What has happened increasingly, and with special impact since the '60s, is that the historic and liberating meaning of America has been under attack by real extremists. Thus, the culture war. I say "extremists" because the aggressors in the culture war occupy philosophical ground antagonistic to the mainstream of American thought and practice.

Two observations about "the mainstream." First, there is a "mainstream of today." This is a socio-political mainstream, and it can vary with time and place. It may be something to embrace -- or not. 

Second, there is, as it were, a "mainstream forever." This mainstream is normative across cultures and history. And so, for example, as the Declaration and Constitution show, unalienable rights and limited government under God is the mainstream American position. This enduring American mainstream is alive to freedom, across time and place, precisely because its meaning does not change like the weather.

To the degree that a president or party advocates a vision or policy (such as health care) outside the abiding American mainstream, to that degree a president or party has moved away from the genius of the American experiment. At present, the liberal Democrat Party is outside of -- and even against -- the enduring American mainstream. Thus its extremism and increasing embrace of tyranny -- in the womb, in the marketplace, against speech and so on. The GOP is in a little better shape and may be able to recover. But it faces significant challenge in its divided and fragmented vision. As you may have heard, a "house divided cannot stand."

The hope of America is that the "mainstream of today" embraces the "mainstream that endures." This is what the New Resistance wants: to reconnect with the liberating identity of who we are as Americans.

The Philosophic Factor: It is crucial that we are not estranged from our identity as Americans. That itself is a national crisis. But there is a factor even more basic to understanding the New Resistance.

This people's rebellion is opening a door, and to walk through that door is to begin rediscovering something exceptional about human beings -- namely, that resistance is an essential part of who we are. That we are great and noble creatures of resistance, "hardwired" that way as "living souls" by the Creator himself. This is the "Philosophic Factor," and we will examine it in the following areas:  

The Creator. First, a philosophy of freedom respects the Creator who is the center of gravity of freedom. "All men are created equal . . . they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." Neither atheism, nature, class, nor group is at the center. Nor is "diversity" at the center. We have a Declaration of Independence under God, not a Declaration of Independence under diversity.

The Creature. Second in a philosophy of freedom, there is a great and noble creature called Man. So grand is this creature that by his own choice he can become a sinner and yet not become a zero. There is a difference between moral brokenness and ontological oblivion. Human beings would be zeros if they were merely chance products of a meaningless universe that itself popped into existence out of nothingness. In that kind of universe, instead of the "Heavens [declaring] the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1), the impersonal particles declare the meaninglessness of man.

But in a philosophy of freedom, the individual is great. The "lowliest" person on the social or economic totem poll is magnificent. "There are no little people," as the great thinker Francis Schaeffer put it. Why? Because of where we came from. Because human beings have their ultimate origin in a final reality that is of infinite worth -- the Creator himself. 

Unalienable Rights. Third is that human beings, by virtue of having been created in the image of God, as human beings are bearers of "unalienable rights." What makes these rights "unalienable"? They have their origin in the Creator. They are not "endowed" by the state, 51 percent of the vote, by 100 percent of the vote, or even by the agitations of activists claiming victimhood. "Unalienable rights" concern that which the Creator has joined together in the essence of the human being. And what the Creator has joined together, let no man separate. Not even government.

Objectivity of Truth. Fourth is the objectivity of truth, as opposed to mere "value." "We hold these truths to be self-evident," says the Declaration. Unfortunately, "values," "religion" and "faith" today are regarded as private expressions of "whatever makes me happy" or helps me cope. Freedom, however, is objectively there as an ethically desirable fact of life, even if no one in the power structure "values" it. Real "freedom" is no mere "value"; it is an objective ethical fact.

Creatures of Resistance. Fifth in a philosophy of freedom is that human beings are creatures of resistance. There is a sense in which we are hardwired to rebel -- not against good, but against evil. Not against life in community with our Creator and our neighbor, but against that which, if not resisted, alienates us from the good, the true and the beautiful -- including freedom. So of course a creature destined for freedom is a creature of resistance against tyranny. And so the founders in the Declaration affirm the "right" and "duty" to "throw off" a government that has as its "direct object ... the establishment of an absolute Tyranny."

How can the New Resistance win the culture war? First, do not allow a demonizing name-calling to slow you down. Second, stand up, proudly, as citizens of resistance. And third, stand up, magnificently, as human beings --as creatures of resistance "blessed" that way by the Creator to say "no!" to tyranny and "yes!" to freedom. 

One final thought. Authoritarians at home and abroad, elected or otherwise, may not be pleased, but future generations and the nations of this world -- even now, across the globe -- have reason to rejoice. Why? Because the same Creator of the founders, and the same liberating information he has given, is available to them as well. They, too, are created in his image. And so the door is open. People all across the world can be exceptional in resistance and freedom.

Or you can put it like this: What's most exceptional about American exceptionalism is that it's not exceptional to America.

__________
J. Richard Pearcey is editor and publisher of The Pearcey Report, and he blogs at Pro-Existence. He is formerly managing editor of Human Events and associate editor of the Evans-Novak Political Report. As a book editor, his projects include Persecution (by David Limbaugh), Story Craft (by John Erickson) and Total Truth: Liberating Christianity From Its Cultural Captivity (by Nancy Pearcey). This article is based on a presentation Pearcey gave near Charleston, S.C., at Awakening 2010 in January of this year, edited for publication. "How the New Resistance Can Win the Culture War" was first published at WorldNetDaily.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

The Ghost of Thanksgiving Yet to Come

By Arnold Ahlert, from "Canada Free Press . . . Because without America there is no Free World".

 clipped from canadafreepress.com

A lesson in the making

The Ghost of Thanksgiving Yet to Come

 By Arnold Ahlert  Wednesday, November 24, 2010

"Winston, come into the dining room, it's time to eat," Julia yelled to her husband. "In a minute, honey, it's a tie score," he answered.  Actually Winston wasn't very interested in the traditional holiday football game between Detroit and Washington.  Ever since the government passed the Civility in Sports Statute of 2017, outlawing tackle football for its "unseemly violence" and the "bad example it sets for the rest of the world," Winston was far less of a football fan than he used to be.  Two-hand touch wasn't nearly as exciting.

Yet wasn't the game that Winston was uninterested in.  It was more the thought of eating another TofuTurkey.  Even though it was the best type of VeggieMeat available after the government revised the American Anti-Obesity Act of 2018, adding fowl to the list of federally-forbidden foods, (which already included potatoes, cranberry sauce and mince-meat pie), it wasn't anything like real turkey.  And ever since the government officially changed the name of "Thanksgiving Day" to "A National Day of Atonement" in 2020 to officially acknowledge the Pilgrims' historically brutal treatment of Native Americans, the holiday had lost a lot of its luster.

Eating in the dining room was also a bit daunting.  The unearthly gleam of government-mandated fluorescent light bulbs made the TofuTurkey look even weirder than it actually was, and the room was always cold.  Ever since Congress passed the Power Conservation Act of 2016, mandating all thermostats—which were monitored and controlled by the electric company—be kept at 68 degrees, every room on the north side of the house was barely tolerable throughout the entire winter.

Still, it was good getting together with family.  Or at least most of the family.  Winston missed his mother, who passed on in October, when she had used up her legal allotment of live-saving medical treatment.  He had had many heated conversations with the Regional Health Consortium, spawned when the private insurance market finally went bankrupt, and everyone was forced into the government health care program.  And though he demanded she be kept on her treatment, it was a futile effort.  "The RHC's resources are limited," explained the government bureaucrat Winston spoke with on the phone. "Your mother received all the benefits to which she was entitled.  I'm sorry for your loss."

Ed couldn't make it either.  He had forgotten to plug in his electric car last night, the only kind available after the Anti-Fossil Fuel Bill of 2021 outlawed the use of the combustion engines—for everyone but government officials.  The fifty mile round trip was about ten miles too far, and Ed didn't want to spend a frosty night on the road somewhere between here and there.

Thankfully, Winston's brother, John, and his wife were flying in.  Winston made sure that the dining room chairs had extra cushions for the occasion.  No one complained more than John about the pain of sitting down so soon after the government-mandated cavity searches at airports, which severely aggravated his hemorrhoids. Ever since a terrorist successfully smuggled a cavity bomb onto a jetliner, the TSA told Americans the added "inconvenience" was an "absolute necessity" in order to stay "one step ahead of the terrorists." Winston's own body had grown accustomed to such probing ever since the government expanded their scope to just about anywhere a crowd gathered, via Anti-Profiling Act of 2022.  That law made it a crime to single out any group or individual for "unequal scrutiny," even when probable cause was involved.  Thus, cavity searches at malls, train stations, bus depots, etc., etc., had become almost routine.  Almost.

The Supreme Court is reviewing the statute, but most Americans expect a Court composed of six progressives and three conservatives to leave the law intact.  "A living Constitution is extremely flexible," said the Court's eldest member, Elena Kagan.  "Europe has had laws like this one for years.  We should learn from their example," she added.

Winston's thoughts turned to his own children.  He got along fairly well with his 12-year-old daughter, Brittany, mostly because she ignored him.  Winston had long ago surrendered to the idea that she could text anyone at any time, even during Atonement Dinner.  Their only real confrontation had occurred when he limited her to 50,000 texts a month, explaining that was all he could afford. She whined for a week, but got over it.

His 16-year-old son, Jason, was another matter altogether.  Perhaps it was the constant bombarding he got in public school that global warming, the bird flu, terrorism or any of a number of other calamities were "just around the corner," but Jason had developed a kind of nihilistic attitude that ranged between simmering surliness and outright hostility.  It didn't help that Jason had reported his father to the police for smoking a cigarette in the house, an act made criminal by the Smoking Control Statute of 2018, which outlawed smoking anywhere within 500 feet of another human being.  Winston paid the $5000 fine, which might have been considered excessive before the American dollar became virtually worthless as a result of QE13.  The latest round of quantitative easing the federal government initiated was, once again, to "spur economic growth."  This time they promised to push unemployment below its years-long rate of 18%, but Winston was not particularly hopeful.

Yet the family had a lot for which to be thankful, Winston thought, before remembering it was a Day of Atonement.  At least he had his memories.  He felt a twinge of sadness when he realized his children would never know what like was like in the Good Old Days, long before government promises to make life "fair for everyone" realized their full potential.  Winston, like so many of his fellow Americans, never realized how much things could change when they didn't happen all at once, but little by little, so people could get used to them.

He wondered what might have happened if the public had stood up while there was still time, maybe back around 2010, when all the real nonsense began.  "Maybe we wouldn't be where we are today if we'd just said 'enough is enough' when we had the chance," he thought.

Maybe so, Winston.  Maybe so.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.