For God, Family and Republic

Ask of God
"All who call on God in true faith, earnestly from the heart, will certainly be heard, and will receive what they have asked and desired, although not in the hour or in the measure, or the very thing which they ask. Yet they will obtain something greater and more glorious than they had dared to ask."

On Anger
"I never work better than when I am inspired by anger; for when I am angry, I can write, pray, and preach well, for then my whole temperament is quickened, my understanding sharpened, and all mundane vexations and temptations depart."

On the Bible
"The Bible is the cradle wherein Christ is laid."

On Canines
"Be thou comforted, little dog, Thou too in Resurrection shall have a little golden tail."

On Education
"I am afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell, unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures and engraving them in the heart of the youth."

On Faith
"Faith is permitting ourselves to be seized by the things we do not see."

On Forgiveness
"Forgiveness is God's command."

On Prayer
"The fewer the words, the better the prayer."

"Pray, and let God worry."

On Spiritual Growth
"There is no justification without sanctification, no forgiveness without renewal of life, no real faith from which the fruits of new obedience do not grow."

On Suffering
"No man ought to lay a cross upon himself, or to adopt tribulation... but if a cross or tribulation come upon him, then let him suffer it patiently, and know that it is good and profitable for him."

On Violence
"Nothing good ever comes of violence."

"War is the greatest plague that can affect humanity; it destroys religion, it destroys states, it destroys families. Any scourge is preferable to it."

On Wine and Women
"Men can go wrong with wine and women: shall we then prohibit and abolish women?"

Jonathan Edwards was the great colonial-era New England minister who presided over the Great Awakening. His acclaim was his profound intellectual broadsides against Arminianism. He wasn't always appreciated as his congregation in Northhampton ran him off, because they thought he took church discipline too seriously. He gained notoriety for his firey Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, and while he fervently preached the Gospel of faith and repentance, he also spoke affectionately of the sweetness of Christ.

The opening salvos of the Westminster Confession of Faith proclaims, "Man's chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever." Likewise, the Puritan divine Jonathan Edwards wrote:

God is glorified within Himself these two ways: 1. By appearing... to Himself in His own perfect idea [of Himself], or in His Son who is the brightness of His glory. 2. By enjoying and delighting in Himself, by flowing forth in infinite love and delight towards Himself, or in his Holy Spirit.

The great Congregationalist preacher further proclaimed that God's ultimate end is the manifestation of his glory in the highest happiness of his creatures. Edwards further surmised:

Because [God] infinitely values his own glory, consisting in the knowledge of himself, love to himself, and complacence and joy in himself; he therefore valued the image, communication or participation of these, in the creature. And it is because he values himself, that he delights in the knowledge, and love, and joy of the creature; as being himself the object of this knowledge, love and complacence... [Thus] God's respect to the creature's good, and his respect to himself, is not a divided respect; but both are united in one, as the happiness of the creature aimed at, is happiness in union with himself.

Least we forget the promises of God, those of faith should take comfort in the reality that God glorifies himself in our happiness in union with him. We've conquered death and the sting of sin through Christ Jesus.

When I Don’t Desire God: How to Fight for Joy
(Crossway Books. Publisher's Date, Sept. 25, 2004, 272 pp. Retail $12.99. Amazon.com $9.74)

I've read quite a bit of John Piper, and this past year I have found a pick-me-up in one of his recent works When I Don’t Desire God: How to Fight for Joy. Therein, he squares this book with his profound doctrine of 'Christian Hedonism' which was first advanced in Desiring God. John Piper notes:

Christian Hedonism is a liberating and devastating doctrine. It teaches that the value of God shines more brightly in the soul that finds deepest satisfaction in him. Therefore it is liberating because it endorses our inborn desire for joy. And it is devastating because it reveals that no one desires God with the passion he demands. Paradoxically, many people experience both of these truths. That certainly is my own experience.

Joy in God is not merely the icing on the cake. Joy is much more than that. Our being satisfied in God shows God's worthiness and that he is necessary to sustain the sacrifices of love. It was the joy before Him, that sustained Christ on that cruel cross. It is the joy before us, that ought to sustain us in our spiritual struggles. We have to fight for joy. Christ has secured victory through the finished work of the Cross.

Piper makes no bones about the fact that life can be tough. Likewise, 2 Timothy 2:3 reminds us, "You therefore must endure hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ" (NKJV). In C.S. Lewis' Problem of Pain, he opines:

There have been times when I think we do not desire heaven; but more often I find myself wondering whether, in our heart of hearts, we have ever desired anything else... It is the secret signature of each soul, the incommunicable and unappeasable want, the thing we desired before we met our wives or made our friends or chose our work, and which we shall still desire on our deathbeds, when the mind no longer knows wife or friend or work... All your life an unattainable ecstasy has hovered just beyond the grasp of your consciousness. The day is coming when you will wake to find, beyond all hope, that you have attained it.

C.S. Lewis conveys what many Christians feel in their spiritual walk, a loss of passion for spiritual things, and a loss of zeal for the joy of our salvation. There simply are times in our lives when we don't desire God, nor the things of God. Indeed, this is the condition of the natural man: "There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God" (Romans 3:10-11, NKJV).

The Christian believer has to be on guard, and we have to fight the good fight, and run with endurance. As Hebrews 12:1 declares: "Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us" (NKJV). John Piper itinerates that we have to fight for joy, and savor the joy of our salvation. "When I saw the truth that God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him, I was freed from the unbiblical of fear that it was wrong to pursue joy," declares Piper. This aforesaid statement is the focal point of Piper's book.

Piper's book gives sound exhortation on how to fight for joy. Throughout this book, Piper is rigorously Scriptural. Also, Piper speaks in an understandable and lucid manner. We fight for joy by being vigilant in our prayer life. Piper devotes a whole chapter to prayer. We have to fight for joy like a justified sinner. We fight for joy by setting our sights on the promises of God, and preaching the Gospel to ourselves—and embracing that pivotal doctrine of justification by faith alone. Piper fittingly ends the book, not with a touchy-feely, self-help motivational theme, but rather with a chapter entitled When The Darkness Doesn't Lift. Herein, Piper manifests his practical nature as a Bible teacher. With a heart of passion for the glory of Christ, John Piper has erected a most profound and spiritually uplifting book.

What makes Piper so profound is that he is the fact that he selectively appeals to other Christian luminaries, John Bunyan, Dietriech Bonhoeffer, Jonathan Edwards, C.S. Lewis, and brings his own unique style and profound wisdom to bear.

This book is available online for free at Desiring God.

I'm currently reading Trusting God: Even When Life Hurts by Jerry Bridges of the Navigators Ministry, which emphasizes God's sovereignty. I extend a sincere thanks to Randy Synder for buying this book for me as a gift, along with the accompanying study guide. It is very much appreciated and needed at this time.

Also, I've read a fascinating book on American constitutional history entitled, Reclaiming the American Revolution : The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy, which Palgrave's publicist sent me in December. Thomas Woods, Jr. wrote a nice review of it on LRC.com. Right now, I'm just revisiting it, and summing up what I've highlighted, as I read it earlier this month. It deals with the legacy of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, states' rights, and the doctrine of interposition. I will be writing an erudite book review on this title for publication.

Last week, I was trekking through a review copy of Napoleon for Dummies, which is a history guide to the little French despot, and his military crusades. The British historian Paul Johnson surmises my sentiments towards the little tyrant. The author J.D. Markham obviously likes his subject matter too much. I don't have much esteem for either the French Revolution or Napoleon. It is an informative read nonetheless, and I won't hold it against him in the future review. Who better to write about Napoleon than a Napoleon sycophant? Frankly, a Dummies guide is about all of the depth I want to approach the Napoleonic wars with. Though, it sums up all the battles nicely. Plus, I need a background and refresher as I prepare to read a book on Waterloo later this year.

I've read other things as well, but it is mostly books that I've read before and were just revisiting, such as John Piper's When I Don't Desire God: How to Fight for Joy. Next on my reading list is David Barton's Benjamin Rush from Wallbuilders, featuring the life and writings of this signer of the Declaration. It includes a biography and numerous selections from Dr. Rush’s own writings that illustrate his strong Christian views on many subjects. I probably won't start until February. I have some old book reviews that I plan on catching up on from titles read in 2005.

Intelligent Design

The teaching of intelligent design in public schools was recently struck down as unconstitutional by a liberal Pennsylvania Federal District Court. Nonetheless, there is ample evidence for intelligent design and creationism as opposed to macroevolution. Intelligent Design as a concept presupposes a first cause for all things in the universe, namely God. There are many dimensions of science, which is supposed against special creation that are conveniently dismissed by secular humanist ideologues. Whether one approaches it from the life sciences or from physics, one is amazed that there are innumerable evidences for intelligent design.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics alone throws a monkeywrench in macroevolution. Everything has been in a state of entropy since the fall of man. Likewise, the attendant concept of irreducible complexity was popularized by Lehigh University biochemist and Fellow of the Discovery Institute Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box. Therein, Behe argued that there are biochemical systems in living organisms are "irreducibly complex" and there is no demonstrable way in which these systems could be broken down into smaller functioning systems. I read Behe's book in 2001 and was persuaded. The idea of macroevolution, and its attendant theory of punctuated equilibrium is unteable. It basically posits continuous evolutionary movement, with prolonged periods of virtual standstill ("equilibrium"), "punctuated" by episodes of very fast development of new life forms. Do you realize that if one enzyme in our body is not present than entire organ systems may collapse, and life would cease for the organism? The irreducible complexity of living organisms makes macroevolution untenable.

God, the creator, manifests himself in his creation of the universe and the life therein. I've joked with an atheist before that "I am not smart enough to be an atheist." But in frankness, seeing this beautiful creation, and attributing it to accident is as prideful as it is stupid. Nothing happens by chance. I'd be happy to provide a reading list of books which makes the case for creationism and intelligent design.

Susurration \soo-suh-RAY-shun\, noun: A whispering sound; a soft murmur.

I added another word to my vocabulary today.

Government versus Science

I interviewed Tom Bethell recently. Bethell is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science. My review and interview got published on the popular Internet e-zine LewRockwell.com. Here is the official blurb from the publisher about the new book:

The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Science busts myths, reveals hidden agendas, and lets you in on some of the little-known secrets about what's really going on in science.

Bet your teacher never told you:

Bet your teacher never told you:

• Why fears of nuclear power aren't science, but unscientific scaremongering
  
• Why species are increasing, not disappearing
  
• Why global warming (and other temperature changes) are not caused by humans (remember the Ice Age?)
  
• Why embryonic stem cell research is snake oil medicine (which is why it needs government subsidies)
  
• Why Darwinism is crumbling
  
• Why the story line of the brave scientist Galileo versus an ignorant Church is wrong

Get a free chapter sample of the The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Science.

by Rep. Ron Paul

The Senate hearings regarding the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court demonstrated that few in Washington view the Constitution as our founders did. The Constitution first and foremost is a document that limits the power of the federal government. It prevents the president, Congress, and the Supreme Court from doing all kinds of things. But judging by last week's hearings, the Constitution is an enabling document, one that authorizes the federal government to involve itself in nearly every aspect of our lives.

The only controversy, it seems, is whether the current nominee will favor the power of one branch over another, or the preferences of one political party over another. Last week's hearings were purely political, because the role of Supreme Court justices has become increasingly political.

Nearly all of the Senators, witnesses, and Judge Alito himself spoke repeatedly about the importance of respecting Supreme Court precedents. The clear implication is that we must equate Supreme Court decisions with the text of the Constitution itself, giving them equal legal weight. But what if some precedents are bad? Should the American people be forced to live with unpopular judicial "laws" forever? The Constitution itself can be amended; are we to accept that Supreme Court rulings are written in stone?

Also troubling was the apparent consensus among both the Senators and Judge Alito that Congress has no authority to limit federal court jurisdiction by forbidding it to hear certain types of cases. This is completely false: Article III Section 2 of the Constitution plainly grants Congress the authority to limit federal court jurisdiction in many kinds of cases. It is perfectly constitutional for Congress to pass court-stripping legislation to reflect public sentiment against an overreaching Supreme Court.

We're being told two very troubling things:

First, Supreme Court decisions are the absolute law of the land, equal in weight to the text of the Constitution itself. Supreme Court precedents should never be changed, and all nominees to the Court must accept them as settled law or be disqualified.

Second, if the American people don't like any of the "laws" created by the Supreme Court, they have no choice but to live with them unless by some miracle the Court later overturns itself. The people have no recourse through Congress to address unpopular Court decisions.

The ramifications of these assertions are very serious. They mean the Supreme Court not only can invalidate the actions of Congress or the President, but also craft de facto laws that cannot be undone by the people's elected legislators! This is wildly beyond the role of the federal judiciary as envisioned by the founders. They certainly never intended to create an unelected, lifetime-tenured, superlegislature.

Our federal courts, like the rest of our federal government, have become far too powerful. When federal judges impose their preferred policies on the American people, the ability of average citizens to influence the laws under which they must live diminishes. This is why every American should read or reread the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Only when we understand the proper role of the judiciary in our federal system will we stop viewing judges as purveyors of social, political, and economic rules for our nation.