DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed: Why I Think the Church is Amazing (Even Though We Don't All Get Cool Buildings Like This One)
Kevin DeYoung at University Reformed Church in East Lansing, a stones throw from where I live and work raises a very valid point. It is pretty easy to cast aspersions on the institutional, organized church. It is the biggest group, it is what we associate "the church" with, it is what we grew up with and what we know and it is very easy to find fault with it. But there is a lot of good that goes on there as well. Give his post a read, it is thought-provoking and looks at things from a different angle than I have been coming at the topic with.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
What’s another trillion dollars?
So Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced a revamped bank bailout plan today and to be generous it was a little shy on details. Lots of vague platitudes about restarting the lending system and preventing foreclosure, but not much specifics. That is fine if you are talking about the business plan for an eBay store, but when you are throwing numbers like $2,000,000,000,000 around, people are going to be looking for some details.
The market is far from reassured that this “plan” is going to work. At 3:00 the Dow is down over 350 points, back below 8000. That is hardly a vote of confidence from people who desperately want some good news.
So what is President Obama going to do when this doesn’t work? There is no back-up plan. He has committed all of his political capital and almost a trillion dollars of tax payer money to the notion that this will save us. There is little guarantee or even rational hope that this “stimulus” spending is going to do much of anything. Even if it does help spur the economy, we are certainly not getting much bang for our (trillion) buck(s).
President Obama is rapidly being exposed for what I suspected he was all along, an empty suit that lacks the experience or the vision to lead this nation. He handed a blank check for $800 billion to the most radically leftist elements of Congress and let them go hog-wild with spending on everything but programs that make sense. Now he is left trying to defend and push a bill that frankly I don’t think he knows much about and certainly is having a hard time selling to an increasingly skeptical American public.
Talking about “hope” and “change” is easy. Leading this nation in a time of crisis is a lot harder.
The market is far from reassured that this “plan” is going to work. At 3:00 the Dow is down over 350 points, back below 8000. That is hardly a vote of confidence from people who desperately want some good news.
So what is President Obama going to do when this doesn’t work? There is no back-up plan. He has committed all of his political capital and almost a trillion dollars of tax payer money to the notion that this will save us. There is little guarantee or even rational hope that this “stimulus” spending is going to do much of anything. Even if it does help spur the economy, we are certainly not getting much bang for our (trillion) buck(s).
President Obama is rapidly being exposed for what I suspected he was all along, an empty suit that lacks the experience or the vision to lead this nation. He handed a blank check for $800 billion to the most radically leftist elements of Congress and let them go hog-wild with spending on everything but programs that make sense. Now he is left trying to defend and push a bill that frankly I don’t think he knows much about and certainly is having a hard time selling to an increasingly skeptical American public.
Talking about “hope” and “change” is easy. Leading this nation in a time of crisis is a lot harder.
Monday, February 09, 2009
This pretty much sums it up...
Obama: 'Only Government' Can Break Cycle of Job Loss, Economic Downturn
"It is absolutely true that we can't depend on government alone to create jobs or economic growth," he said. "But at this particular moment, with the private sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life. It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money which leads to even more layoffs."
We are in SOOOOO much trouble. Leave it to a liberal to try to solve a crisis brought on by irresponsible borrowing and spending witheven more irresponsible borrowing and spending. Last time I checked, not only was the government not able to do what he thinks it can, it constitutionally has no jurisdiction to do so.
"It is absolutely true that we can't depend on government alone to create jobs or economic growth," he said. "But at this particular moment, with the private sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life. It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money which leads to even more layoffs."
We are in SOOOOO much trouble. Leave it to a liberal to try to solve a crisis brought on by irresponsible borrowing and spending witheven more irresponsible borrowing and spending. Last time I checked, not only was the government not able to do what he thinks it can, it constitutionally has no jurisdiction to do so.
Where and how do we worship
Grace In Bloom: Growing in the Grace and Knowledge of Jesus Christ: Free Church of Scotland Continuing
A very thought provoking post appeared on Bethany's blog as she and her husband are seeking out a new church. Bethany's husband is looking for, based on what I have read, a very traditional, formal, conservative Presbyterian church. Bethany has a somewhat different notion of how church should look. What to do?
Trying to find the perfect church is going to be eternally frustrating. I think that we are all spending too much time and effort on the mode of worship, where we meet, what order we worship in, what hymnal we are using. These divisions, ever parsing ourselves into smaller and smaller and more exclusive subsets is not healthy and frankly have no Biblical support except the support we try to force on them. As a family we are trying to find a middle ground. The church we went to the last few weeks is kind of programmatic, but there are lots of sincere believers meeting there and even another young woman covering her head. It is by no means an ideal church even though it is strongly Reformed and Baptistic. But believers are gathered there, we are worshipping and sitting under the proclamation of the Word of God. We are observing the Lord’s Supper and it is my desire that we build relationships with other believers in this setting and as a result spend more time with them outside of “church”.
On the other hand, the church is about worship and fellowship, but it is also about truth and about teaching (Acts 2:42) and about doctrine. There are some truths that are clear and that we cannot compromise on: justification by faith, the inerrancy of the Word, the Trinity. There are other truths that we can disagree with but that does not negate Christian fellowship. But when it comes to weekly worship in a formal setting, with preaching and teaching? There are several excellent paedo churches near us, but I simply am unable to submit to teaching that I think is wrong and un-Scriptural. I am going to a conference at one of those churches in a week and I expect to have a wonderful time of Christian fellowship and teaching when we are there. But would we worship there on a regular basis? Probably not, nor would they let me teach or preach there because I have issues with some substantive doctrinal issues that they hold. So from a practical standpoint, there are barriers to formal worshipping together even though I would welcome a paedo brother in my home or in other settings. Should we have barriers to fellowshipping with every other believer? Probably not. But realistically there are differences in doctrines that necessitate that we don’t worship as freely as we should. I am not saying it has Biblical mandate, but what else are we to do? Just ignore major doctrinal issues? In eternity, the Calvinist will lie down with the Arminian and the credobaptist will put his hand over the paedobaptist nest and not be stung. But this side of the new heavens and earth, that is not what is happening.
That may indicate that there is a problem with how we define worship and fellowship in the first place…
A very thought provoking post appeared on Bethany's blog as she and her husband are seeking out a new church. Bethany's husband is looking for, based on what I have read, a very traditional, formal, conservative Presbyterian church. Bethany has a somewhat different notion of how church should look. What to do?
Trying to find the perfect church is going to be eternally frustrating. I think that we are all spending too much time and effort on the mode of worship, where we meet, what order we worship in, what hymnal we are using. These divisions, ever parsing ourselves into smaller and smaller and more exclusive subsets is not healthy and frankly have no Biblical support except the support we try to force on them. As a family we are trying to find a middle ground. The church we went to the last few weeks is kind of programmatic, but there are lots of sincere believers meeting there and even another young woman covering her head. It is by no means an ideal church even though it is strongly Reformed and Baptistic. But believers are gathered there, we are worshipping and sitting under the proclamation of the Word of God. We are observing the Lord’s Supper and it is my desire that we build relationships with other believers in this setting and as a result spend more time with them outside of “church”.
On the other hand, the church is about worship and fellowship, but it is also about truth and about teaching (Acts 2:42) and about doctrine. There are some truths that are clear and that we cannot compromise on: justification by faith, the inerrancy of the Word, the Trinity. There are other truths that we can disagree with but that does not negate Christian fellowship. But when it comes to weekly worship in a formal setting, with preaching and teaching? There are several excellent paedo churches near us, but I simply am unable to submit to teaching that I think is wrong and un-Scriptural. I am going to a conference at one of those churches in a week and I expect to have a wonderful time of Christian fellowship and teaching when we are there. But would we worship there on a regular basis? Probably not, nor would they let me teach or preach there because I have issues with some substantive doctrinal issues that they hold. So from a practical standpoint, there are barriers to formal worshipping together even though I would welcome a paedo brother in my home or in other settings. Should we have barriers to fellowshipping with every other believer? Probably not. But realistically there are differences in doctrines that necessitate that we don’t worship as freely as we should. I am not saying it has Biblical mandate, but what else are we to do? Just ignore major doctrinal issues? In eternity, the Calvinist will lie down with the Arminian and the credobaptist will put his hand over the paedobaptist nest and not be stung. But this side of the new heavens and earth, that is not what is happening.
That may indicate that there is a problem with how we define worship and fellowship in the first place…
The NY Times on large families
A co-worker pointed me to an article in the New York Times from Sunday on some of the hostility that large families get in society titled And Baby Makes How Many? . Oddly, the NY Times was kind of sympathetic which seemed out of character for them. Big families tend to be looked at as something pretty odd, which is why people have reality shows about them (when we are asked if we watch those shows, I always tell people why would I? If I want to see life in a family full of little kids, I will just go home!) But the numbers bear out that large families are rapidly becoming a distinct and tiny minority in America….
If large families are the stuff of spectacle, it is partly because they have become rarer.
In 1976, census data show, 59 percent of women ages 40 to 44 had three or more children, 20 percent had five or more and 6 percent had seven or more.
By 2006, four decades after the Supreme Court declared a constitutional right to use birth control (and the last year available from census studies), 28 percent of women ages 40 to 44 had three or more children, 4 percent had five or more and just 0.5 percent had seven or more.
“Three is still O.K.,” said Michelle Lehmann, the founder of lotsofkids.com and a mother of eight children who lives outside Chicago. “When you have four, people start raising eyebrows. When you go to five, people are like, ‘No way.’ ”
Beyond 10? “They think you are lying,” said Mrs. Gunnip, who also writes two blogs for so-called mega-families, those with eight or more children.
It is amazing to think that the percentage of families with 7 or more children has decreased in 30 years by more than 90%. I think Ms. Lehmann hits the nail on the head, the society as a whole looks at the size of your family and makes judgment calls based on how big the family is. 2 or 3 is great. Even four is sort of OK, but I know from personal experience that when you get past five people start to really look at your oddly.
One thing I found especially telling was the argument that having a bunch of kids is ecologically irresponsible.
“Every single person has multiple impacts on multiple environmental resources,” said Alan Weisman, the author of “The World Without Us,” which advocates a one-child policy to return the world to early 20th century population levels. “It’s a no-brainer that the more people there are, the more stress there is on an ecosystem that doesn’t get any bigger.”
Parents of large families counter that they have an economy of scale: a light bulb lights a room whether there are 4 people or 14. Their children learn not to take long showers, to share space, to appreciate hand-me-down toys, clothes and books.
“Large families are some of the greenest families,” Mrs. Gunnip said. “They don’t tend to have a lot of money, so they make sure things go as far as they can.”
That is a great point. My kids are not wearing brand new Baby Gap stuff, they wear hand-me-downs. My boys have worn pink jammies to bed when they were little because we were not going to buy brand new stuff. They don’t eat lunchables or drink out of juice boxes. They eat sandwiches they makes themselves and drink water or milk out of a glass. We don’t generate much more, or even as much, garbage as smaller families. Our kids are not consumers by and large. There are tons of houses around us that are much, much larger than ours and they house families with a couple of kids. Even though the reality is that large families are probably not substantially greater consumers of resources and that we are not replacing the population in many Western nations, the mindset that is becoming more and more prevalent is that there is something faintly immoral in having larger families. Dr. Mohler addressed news out of Great Britain last week that sounded ominously like the government there was considering limiting the number of children, as more than two was declared “irresponsible”.
As I have said before, it doesn’t surprise me that many unbelieving families look askance at large families. What is troubling is that so many Christian families have the same attitude. I am encouraged to see that families who desire to have large families and embrace the blessing of children are able to find support from people all over the country via blogs and other electronic media. In an given community or church, you may find a couple of big families but online you can run into thousands, and all of them are going through the same trials and struggles, getting the same inane questions (no there are not all my kids, six of them followed me in from the parking lot) but also are enjoying the incredible blessings that large families bring (a couple that are mentioned in the article that I am unfamiliar with are lotsofkids and largerfamilies).
It is an interesting article, you should check it out.
If large families are the stuff of spectacle, it is partly because they have become rarer.
In 1976, census data show, 59 percent of women ages 40 to 44 had three or more children, 20 percent had five or more and 6 percent had seven or more.
By 2006, four decades after the Supreme Court declared a constitutional right to use birth control (and the last year available from census studies), 28 percent of women ages 40 to 44 had three or more children, 4 percent had five or more and just 0.5 percent had seven or more.
“Three is still O.K.,” said Michelle Lehmann, the founder of lotsofkids.com and a mother of eight children who lives outside Chicago. “When you have four, people start raising eyebrows. When you go to five, people are like, ‘No way.’ ”
Beyond 10? “They think you are lying,” said Mrs. Gunnip, who also writes two blogs for so-called mega-families, those with eight or more children.
It is amazing to think that the percentage of families with 7 or more children has decreased in 30 years by more than 90%. I think Ms. Lehmann hits the nail on the head, the society as a whole looks at the size of your family and makes judgment calls based on how big the family is. 2 or 3 is great. Even four is sort of OK, but I know from personal experience that when you get past five people start to really look at your oddly.
One thing I found especially telling was the argument that having a bunch of kids is ecologically irresponsible.
“Every single person has multiple impacts on multiple environmental resources,” said Alan Weisman, the author of “The World Without Us,” which advocates a one-child policy to return the world to early 20th century population levels. “It’s a no-brainer that the more people there are, the more stress there is on an ecosystem that doesn’t get any bigger.”
Parents of large families counter that they have an economy of scale: a light bulb lights a room whether there are 4 people or 14. Their children learn not to take long showers, to share space, to appreciate hand-me-down toys, clothes and books.
“Large families are some of the greenest families,” Mrs. Gunnip said. “They don’t tend to have a lot of money, so they make sure things go as far as they can.”
That is a great point. My kids are not wearing brand new Baby Gap stuff, they wear hand-me-downs. My boys have worn pink jammies to bed when they were little because we were not going to buy brand new stuff. They don’t eat lunchables or drink out of juice boxes. They eat sandwiches they makes themselves and drink water or milk out of a glass. We don’t generate much more, or even as much, garbage as smaller families. Our kids are not consumers by and large. There are tons of houses around us that are much, much larger than ours and they house families with a couple of kids. Even though the reality is that large families are probably not substantially greater consumers of resources and that we are not replacing the population in many Western nations, the mindset that is becoming more and more prevalent is that there is something faintly immoral in having larger families. Dr. Mohler addressed news out of Great Britain last week that sounded ominously like the government there was considering limiting the number of children, as more than two was declared “irresponsible”.
As I have said before, it doesn’t surprise me that many unbelieving families look askance at large families. What is troubling is that so many Christian families have the same attitude. I am encouraged to see that families who desire to have large families and embrace the blessing of children are able to find support from people all over the country via blogs and other electronic media. In an given community or church, you may find a couple of big families but online you can run into thousands, and all of them are going through the same trials and struggles, getting the same inane questions (no there are not all my kids, six of them followed me in from the parking lot) but also are enjoying the incredible blessings that large families bring (a couple that are mentioned in the article that I am unfamiliar with are lotsofkids and largerfamilies).
It is an interesting article, you should check it out.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Excellent Balance!
Grace in the Triad: Pastors leaving Churches
I came across a very good post by Dusman at the blog Grace in the Triad. I think he really hits on some of the proper balances that we should seek in the church. His jumping off point is an interesting Time magazine article that talks about rural churches closing down because of pastors moving on to bigger and better things. I think I am going to post something about the article in Time, but I encourage you to read the post at Grace in the Triad. Balance is key. Can pastors be seminary trained? Sure! Must pastors be seminary trained? Nope. Can we pay them? Sure. Must we? No! There is a lot of stridency on both ends of the spectrum, and I think the end result is that we obscure the reason for worshipping in the first place and instead place all of our focus on how and where we worship, not on who we worship. Check it out!
I came across a very good post by Dusman at the blog Grace in the Triad. I think he really hits on some of the proper balances that we should seek in the church. His jumping off point is an interesting Time magazine article that talks about rural churches closing down because of pastors moving on to bigger and better things. I think I am going to post something about the article in Time, but I encourage you to read the post at Grace in the Triad. Balance is key. Can pastors be seminary trained? Sure! Must pastors be seminary trained? Nope. Can we pay them? Sure. Must we? No! There is a lot of stridency on both ends of the spectrum, and I think the end result is that we obscure the reason for worshipping in the first place and instead place all of our focus on how and where we worship, not on who we worship. Check it out!
Some good news
From the Wall Street Journal:
No Waiting: Younger Women Are Saying Yes to Motherhood
For nearly 40 years, women have been delaying childbirth longer and longer, partly to launch careers. Now, this trend may be ending.
For the first time since government records have been kept, the average age at which women have their first babies posted a decline -- according to newly released data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Mothers' mean age at their first childbirth fell to 25.0 years in 2006, the most recent figures available, from 25.2 in 2005. Women ages 20 to 24 led the shift, with a 5% increase in the rate of first births.
A one-year reversal doesn't make a trend, of course. But the study lends weight to anecdotal evidence that young women are tuning in more closely to their biological clocks. "It's the first time it's ever gone down, and certainly that's noteworthy," says Brady Hamilton, co-author of the study.
The relegation of children as an afterthought, even among Christian couples, is leading inexorably to a decline in our society. We are rapidly approaching the point where we will not replace ourselves and are probably already at that point when we look at our societal expectations. We expect that we will work from about 20 until about 65 and then retire and live off our pensions, retirement savings and Social Security. But with people living longer and longer, and having ever fewer children, we are going to see our society becoming "top heavy" with far more adults in retirement than adults in the workforce, and that means that in order to support the system of expectations that we have, an ever increasing percentage of the wages of working Americans will have to be allocated to the care and support of the elderly.
The whole problem is compounded by the interference of the government in the process. Our government is inherently inefficient, so we have perhaps the least efficient institution in our society being given the greatest share of responsibility for our retirement. So we have society telling people "wait to have children until you are ready", which leads to later and later child bearing which in turn makes child bearing more difficult leading to the rise of fertility treatments. So here is the logic: save your money, wait to get married, get married late, have a hard time getting pregnant and then blow all the money you saved on fertility treatments or adoption. There is a difference between getting married later in life or having natural difficulty getting pregnant and the willful postponement of children until a more favorable time. This is especially true in Christian couples. Not that Christian couples wait longer than non-Christians, but that they should know better. Children are a marvelous blessing. I would hazard to say that after the miracle of salvation, there is no greater blessing a Christian can receive than children.
But what are we teaching our children? Are we teaching them through words and deeds that children are a necessary nuisance, one that should be avoided for as long as possible? Or are we encouraging them to seek the blessings of Christian marriage and children? Based on family size in churches and the age of parents, I would say that we certainly are not making having children a priority for our children.
I have more to say on this (surprise, surprise) regarding Christian kids and college later. Suffice it to say that if we are prioritizing careers, travel and fun for our kids and de-emphasizing marriage and children, we are failing as parents. If your daughter grows up to be a doctor or if your son grows up to be an engineer and they never grasp the blessings of marriage and family, you have not done your job as a parent and your children has been done a disservice.
No Waiting: Younger Women Are Saying Yes to Motherhood
For nearly 40 years, women have been delaying childbirth longer and longer, partly to launch careers. Now, this trend may be ending.
For the first time since government records have been kept, the average age at which women have their first babies posted a decline -- according to newly released data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Mothers' mean age at their first childbirth fell to 25.0 years in 2006, the most recent figures available, from 25.2 in 2005. Women ages 20 to 24 led the shift, with a 5% increase in the rate of first births.
A one-year reversal doesn't make a trend, of course. But the study lends weight to anecdotal evidence that young women are tuning in more closely to their biological clocks. "It's the first time it's ever gone down, and certainly that's noteworthy," says Brady Hamilton, co-author of the study.
The relegation of children as an afterthought, even among Christian couples, is leading inexorably to a decline in our society. We are rapidly approaching the point where we will not replace ourselves and are probably already at that point when we look at our societal expectations. We expect that we will work from about 20 until about 65 and then retire and live off our pensions, retirement savings and Social Security. But with people living longer and longer, and having ever fewer children, we are going to see our society becoming "top heavy" with far more adults in retirement than adults in the workforce, and that means that in order to support the system of expectations that we have, an ever increasing percentage of the wages of working Americans will have to be allocated to the care and support of the elderly.
The whole problem is compounded by the interference of the government in the process. Our government is inherently inefficient, so we have perhaps the least efficient institution in our society being given the greatest share of responsibility for our retirement. So we have society telling people "wait to have children until you are ready", which leads to later and later child bearing which in turn makes child bearing more difficult leading to the rise of fertility treatments. So here is the logic: save your money, wait to get married, get married late, have a hard time getting pregnant and then blow all the money you saved on fertility treatments or adoption. There is a difference between getting married later in life or having natural difficulty getting pregnant and the willful postponement of children until a more favorable time. This is especially true in Christian couples. Not that Christian couples wait longer than non-Christians, but that they should know better. Children are a marvelous blessing. I would hazard to say that after the miracle of salvation, there is no greater blessing a Christian can receive than children.
But what are we teaching our children? Are we teaching them through words and deeds that children are a necessary nuisance, one that should be avoided for as long as possible? Or are we encouraging them to seek the blessings of Christian marriage and children? Based on family size in churches and the age of parents, I would say that we certainly are not making having children a priority for our children.
I have more to say on this (surprise, surprise) regarding Christian kids and college later. Suffice it to say that if we are prioritizing careers, travel and fun for our kids and de-emphasizing marriage and children, we are failing as parents. If your daughter grows up to be a doctor or if your son grows up to be an engineer and they never grasp the blessings of marriage and family, you have not done your job as a parent and your children has been done a disservice.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
New headcover
I found a nice store on eBay that sells headcovering, and I bought my wife the one to the left. It fits very nicely, it is kind of plain but that is what she wanted. There are some others that are a lot more colorful. The lady sells her head covers for Jewish women, so the material and workmanship is apparently kosher. You can check her eBay store out here.
(FYI, that is not really my wife, it is a mannequin)
Congrats to the GOP!
Reports are that they held firm and managed to get the size of the "stimulus" reduced from $900 billion to around $800 billion. So they are saving $100 billion in pork spending. Well done.
That still means that this spending bill is enormous and will ultimately be ineffectual. This is the sort of behavior that got the GOP booted in the first place. Wringing a minor concession out of what is still bad legislation and horrible public policy is not a victory. In fact, rather than being principled and standing against this farce in unison, now they have given President Obama a club. When this stimulus fails, even I could write the press conference talking points: "Unfortunately the Republican party gutted the stimulus bill and that is why it failed. It is their fault!" Be sure the complicit media allies of our new President will jump right on board with that line of reasoning.
This is not a victory. Agreeing to a spending bill of $800 billion is not a conservative victory because we didn't agree to $900 billion. It is a capitulation and a bunch of politicians patting themselves on the back for not being totally corrupt. Worse yet, it weakens the GOP position and gives Obama a club which you can be sure he will smack them with in the future.
Oh well, at least the Republicans in Congress exhibited some spine and courage of convictions for almost one whole week after a devastating loss in the 2008 elections.
That still means that this spending bill is enormous and will ultimately be ineffectual. This is the sort of behavior that got the GOP booted in the first place. Wringing a minor concession out of what is still bad legislation and horrible public policy is not a victory. In fact, rather than being principled and standing against this farce in unison, now they have given President Obama a club. When this stimulus fails, even I could write the press conference talking points: "Unfortunately the Republican party gutted the stimulus bill and that is why it failed. It is their fault!" Be sure the complicit media allies of our new President will jump right on board with that line of reasoning.
This is not a victory. Agreeing to a spending bill of $800 billion is not a conservative victory because we didn't agree to $900 billion. It is a capitulation and a bunch of politicians patting themselves on the back for not being totally corrupt. Worse yet, it weakens the GOP position and gives Obama a club which you can be sure he will smack them with in the future.
Oh well, at least the Republicans in Congress exhibited some spine and courage of convictions for almost one whole week after a devastating loss in the 2008 elections.
Friday, February 06, 2009
But he started it!
Obama gets, er goes on the, offensive!
After getting hammered in the media for weeks over the massive "stimulus" package, President Obama finally started firing back. For such a brilliant guy, he and his team have spent weeks getting beat up over this ridiculous pork package and now with public support plummeting they decide to look around and see that their mandate is crashing down. The economy still stinks, more layoffs happen every day and there is no end in sight. Rather than sound Presidential and exhibiting leadership, he frankly sounds like a petulant teenager who is being told he cannot have the keys to the car on Saturday night.
In what was the most pointedly partisan speech of his young presidency, Obama rejected Republican arguments that massive spending in the $819 billion stimulus bill that passed the House should be replaced by a new round of massive tax cuts.
“I welcome this debate, but we are not going to get relief by turning back to the same policies that for the last eight years doubled the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin,” said President Obama – sounding more like Candidate Obama than at any time since he took the oath of office less than a month ago.
Obama, speaking to about 200 House Democrats at their annual retreat at the Kingsmill Resort and Spa, dismissed Republican attacks against the massive spending in the stimulus.
"What do you think a stimulus is?" Obama asked incredulously. "It’s spending — that's the whole point! Seriously.”
"Seriously" Is he fourteen? I wonder if he rolled his eyes and sighed? He is right about one thing, it is spending all right but that doesn't make it stimulus. Especially when you spend money on stuff that won't go into effect for two years or on just outrageous pork and political paybacks like hundreds of millions on STD research. More on the Obama "rationale" to drive a nation deep in debt even further into debt...
“When you start hearing arguments, on the cable chatter, just understand a couple of things,” he said. “No. 1, when they say, ‘Well, why are we spending $800 billion [when] we’ve got this huge deficit?’ – first of all, I found this deficit when I showed up, No. 1.
“I found this national debt, doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office.”
This is Obama "going on the offensive"? The only this offensive here is how naive and pompous the President of the United State is. I guess since we already have a huge deficit it makes it OK to spend even further. Ever caught your kids fighting and the one says "He started it!" as if that makes it OK? That is what this argument amounts to. We were already in a huge deficit when I got here, so you cannot criticize me for deficit spending. Well think again. If he expects the wounded GOP to walk in lockstep with the same policies that got them booted, he is in for a rude shock. You would think he would know better, having been an instructor at a law school as he so often reminds us, but being "bi-partisan" doesn't mean he dictates and the Republicans meekly go along with what he says.
Mr. Obama you knew what you were signing on for and governing is different than campaigning. You managed to convince millions of Americans to elect you in spite of your lack of substantive plans and your complete lack of experience. Now you are President, so it is incumbent upon you to govern, not to pout when people don't walk in lockstep. Being a candidate is easy. Being a President is a lot harder.
Seriously.
After getting hammered in the media for weeks over the massive "stimulus" package, President Obama finally started firing back. For such a brilliant guy, he and his team have spent weeks getting beat up over this ridiculous pork package and now with public support plummeting they decide to look around and see that their mandate is crashing down. The economy still stinks, more layoffs happen every day and there is no end in sight. Rather than sound Presidential and exhibiting leadership, he frankly sounds like a petulant teenager who is being told he cannot have the keys to the car on Saturday night.
In what was the most pointedly partisan speech of his young presidency, Obama rejected Republican arguments that massive spending in the $819 billion stimulus bill that passed the House should be replaced by a new round of massive tax cuts.
“I welcome this debate, but we are not going to get relief by turning back to the same policies that for the last eight years doubled the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin,” said President Obama – sounding more like Candidate Obama than at any time since he took the oath of office less than a month ago.
Obama, speaking to about 200 House Democrats at their annual retreat at the Kingsmill Resort and Spa, dismissed Republican attacks against the massive spending in the stimulus.
"What do you think a stimulus is?" Obama asked incredulously. "It’s spending — that's the whole point! Seriously.”
"Seriously" Is he fourteen? I wonder if he rolled his eyes and sighed? He is right about one thing, it is spending all right but that doesn't make it stimulus. Especially when you spend money on stuff that won't go into effect for two years or on just outrageous pork and political paybacks like hundreds of millions on STD research. More on the Obama "rationale" to drive a nation deep in debt even further into debt...
“When you start hearing arguments, on the cable chatter, just understand a couple of things,” he said. “No. 1, when they say, ‘Well, why are we spending $800 billion [when] we’ve got this huge deficit?’ – first of all, I found this deficit when I showed up, No. 1.
“I found this national debt, doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office.”
This is Obama "going on the offensive"? The only this offensive here is how naive and pompous the President of the United State is. I guess since we already have a huge deficit it makes it OK to spend even further. Ever caught your kids fighting and the one says "He started it!" as if that makes it OK? That is what this argument amounts to. We were already in a huge deficit when I got here, so you cannot criticize me for deficit spending. Well think again. If he expects the wounded GOP to walk in lockstep with the same policies that got them booted, he is in for a rude shock. You would think he would know better, having been an instructor at a law school as he so often reminds us, but being "bi-partisan" doesn't mean he dictates and the Republicans meekly go along with what he says.
Mr. Obama you knew what you were signing on for and governing is different than campaigning. You managed to convince millions of Americans to elect you in spite of your lack of substantive plans and your complete lack of experience. Now you are President, so it is incumbent upon you to govern, not to pout when people don't walk in lockstep. Being a candidate is easy. Being a President is a lot harder.
Seriously.
Separating the sheep from the sheep
The Assembling of the Church: Separating the sheep from the sheep
Alan Knox reprinted a older post and raises the question of why we spend so much time separating the sheep from the sheep. An awful lot of our time and energy goes into dividing the church. Even the schedule does this to an extent. If you go to church A and they have services at the same time as every other church in town, by necessity you are going to be excluding from fellowship everyone who goes anywhere else. We get compartmentalized into the circle of people we "go to church" with to the exclusion of others. A big problem with this is that a lot of the people we "go to church" with are not Christians, so we are excluding other Christians from fellowship and replacing them with unbelievers.
The questions raised though bring another point of concern for me. What do we do about doctrine and theology? Christianity is a relational faith, relational in the sense of relationships with one another and most importantly with Christ. But it is also a deeply doctrinal faith, a faith of truth propositions, of clear cut doctrines that are true and teachings that are false. I fellowshipped in a home a few weeks ago with a man and his family, and he seemed like a genuine believer but he held to Arminiainism to the point of having every Charles Finney book in print on his bookshelf. While I look at this brother and believe that he is a sincere believer, the doctrines he holds to and the teachers he admires are not. The doctrines espoused by Charles Finney amount to "another Gospel". So for the sake of fellowship, do I reubke this brother for following false teachers? Or for the sake of truth do I reject fellowship with this brother?
My comment on Alan's blog is pasted below:
I agree that we need to spend less time dividing ourselves into sub-groups and spend more time in fellowship with one another. Some of our closest friends in Christ are people we have serious doctrinal disagreements with. But...
Where do we draw a line? What of a brother who is teaching something that is false? I am concerned that we not merely "go along to get along" The New Testament is replete with Paul correcting false teachings, not teachings outside of the Body but inside the Body and doing so strenously. We cannot leave Truth at the door as we seek fellowship with other believers.
What do you think? Where do we draw the line between fellowship and truth? Can we draw that line?
Alan Knox reprinted a older post and raises the question of why we spend so much time separating the sheep from the sheep. An awful lot of our time and energy goes into dividing the church. Even the schedule does this to an extent. If you go to church A and they have services at the same time as every other church in town, by necessity you are going to be excluding from fellowship everyone who goes anywhere else. We get compartmentalized into the circle of people we "go to church" with to the exclusion of others. A big problem with this is that a lot of the people we "go to church" with are not Christians, so we are excluding other Christians from fellowship and replacing them with unbelievers.
The questions raised though bring another point of concern for me. What do we do about doctrine and theology? Christianity is a relational faith, relational in the sense of relationships with one another and most importantly with Christ. But it is also a deeply doctrinal faith, a faith of truth propositions, of clear cut doctrines that are true and teachings that are false. I fellowshipped in a home a few weeks ago with a man and his family, and he seemed like a genuine believer but he held to Arminiainism to the point of having every Charles Finney book in print on his bookshelf. While I look at this brother and believe that he is a sincere believer, the doctrines he holds to and the teachers he admires are not. The doctrines espoused by Charles Finney amount to "another Gospel". So for the sake of fellowship, do I reubke this brother for following false teachers? Or for the sake of truth do I reject fellowship with this brother?
My comment on Alan's blog is pasted below:
I agree that we need to spend less time dividing ourselves into sub-groups and spend more time in fellowship with one another. Some of our closest friends in Christ are people we have serious doctrinal disagreements with. But...
Where do we draw a line? What of a brother who is teaching something that is false? I am concerned that we not merely "go along to get along" The New Testament is replete with Paul correcting false teachings, not teachings outside of the Body but inside the Body and doing so strenously. We cannot leave Truth at the door as we seek fellowship with other believers.
What do you think? Where do we draw the line between fellowship and truth? Can we draw that line?
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)