Daniel J. Summers » Charter Member of the VRWC

Recently, one of my Facebook friends posted a link to an article entitled “How Do Christians Become Conservative?” I believe that this article was significantly flawed; I hope those friends will take the time to read this and think about what it says. Know my heart in this; it’s not a me vs. them, conservative vs. liberal thing, it’s about truth. As a Christian, I want to ensure that claims made about my Savior are accurate; after all, if we’re supposed to follow His example, shouldn’t we make sure we know what that is?

The article was written by a man named Mike Lux. In this article, he goes through great pains to show how Jesus was actually a progressive (a term liberals like to use for themselves to avoid the negative connotations associated with liberalism). I found his theology questionable, being based in large part on taking quotes out of context. Over the course of this entry (and at least one more to come), I’d like to show where this is misguided. I have no personal vendetta agains Mr. Lux, nor do I derive any pleasure at showing where his arguments break down; this is not about him or me.

(Regular readers of my occasional posts here will know that I either post short items or long items; this isn’t going to be short. Quotes below are from Mr. Lux, unless otherwise noted.)

First off, I want to address his view of Scripture.

I decided about four decades ago that since there was no way for sure about the nature of God or the soul or all that metaphysical stuff, I wasn’t going to spend much time thinking, caring, or worrying about it. If that sends one to hell, at least I’ll be there with a lot of my favorite people.

I focused here on the Jesus of the Gospels (principally Matthew, Mark and Luke — the Gospel of John is almost all focused on mystical spiritualism)….

Judeo-Christian scripture is a rich and complicated work of literature. Written over the course of (at least) several hundred years by dozens of different authors, there are a variety of perspectives and many times outright contradictions in the theology and the politics of the writing (if it’s all inspired word for word by God, He seems to have changed his mind a lot).

This, then, is an unbeliever trying to tell believers what Scripture says. He obviously does not believe 2 Timothy 3:16, which states “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness…” Either all of the Bible is true, or none of It is; if It is not entirely true, how do we know which portions are and which portions aren’t? Why base your faith or arguments in a flawed book?

Given this view of the Bible, it almost makes sense why his arguments are so selective. There are portions of the Bible that can be twisted to say whatever you want them to say. A serious study of the Scriptures must consider the many different contexts; the context within the surrounding verses, the context with Scripture even in different books of the Bible, and the context of the culture in which the statements were made.

The Jesus of the New Testament was of course extremely concerned with spiritual matters: there is no doubt whatsoever about his role or interest in the issues of the day, that the spiritual well-being of his followers was a major interest of his.

This is true; however, it wasn’t just His followers for whom He was concerned regarding spiritual well-being. In fact, one verse that is frequently taken out of context is Jesus and the woman caught in adultery.

When Jesus stood up, He said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, Lord,” she answered.

“Neither do I condemn you,” said Jesus.
John 8:10-11

Wow! How non-judgemental! I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard this being used by someone to justify why a Christian shouldn’t point out their sin to them. There’s just one problem with this – I (just as they do) conveniently left out the last part, which changes things just a bit.

“Neither do I condemn you,” said Jesus. “Go, and from now on do not sin any more.” (emphasis mine)

Jesus didn’t condemn her (a point lost on some Christians, that’s for sure); but, He did not ignore her sin! He gave her forgiveness and a charge to change her behavior. This is certainly only one example (and not even one Mr. Lux made), but it’s illustrative of how omitting something can change the meaning of Scripture.

With that example, let’s dive into Mr. Lux’s use of that technique.

In Luke 6, Jesus says the poor and hungry will be blessed, and the rich will be cursed.

He’s speaking of Luke 6:20-26. “Blessed are you who are poor, because the kingdom of God is yours.” (v. 20b) However, compare this with Matthew’s account – “Blessed are the poor in spirit, because the kingdom of heaven is theirs.” So, is Jesus talking about poverty, or is He talking about pride? Balanced against the remainder of Scripture, both Old and New Testament, I believe He’s talking about pride. Realizing that one is a sinner and needs forgiveness requires a humility that’s unnatural for us humans.  Generally speaking, those who are wealthy tend to rely on their wealth, rather than the saving grace that Jesus offers.

I’ll grant him that yes, Luke 6:24-25 do appear to say what he says they do when taken out of context. There are other Scriptures that speak to the difficulty someone who has riches can have following the Lord.

“Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
Matthew 19:24

As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus asked him. “No one is good but One – God. You know the commandments: Do not murder; do not commit adultery; do not steal; do not bear false witness; do not defraud; honor your father and mother.”

He said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these from my youth.”

Then, looking at him, Jesus loved him and said to him, “You lack one thing: Go, sell all you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.” But he was stunned at this demand, and he went away grieving, because he had many possessions.
Mark 10:17-22 (emphasis mine)

Jesus loved this person who wanted to follow Him. However, He knew the hindrance that these possessions would have on this man’s ability to focus on following Christ. Jesus didn’t condemn him for having these possessions and riches; rather, He told him how he should use them. Caring for the poor and needy is an outcome of one’s relationship with Christ; in fact, James 1:27 says “Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress…”  There are several other places where rich people are told to use their acquired wealth to help the poor; they’re not condemned for earning it, just directed to use it in a different way.  Again, this fruit comes from the seed of a relationship with Christ.

(On a side note – this is not a governmental edict. Isn’t it “progressives” who accuse conservatives of trying to make America into a theocracy? Of trying to make God’s law into man’s law? Where’s the “separation of church and state” argument, Mr. Lux?)

For today, let’s look at one more of the claims from the original article.

He chases the wealthy bankers and merchants from the Temple.

This is true. However, did He chase these bankers and merchants from the temple because they were wealthy? Of course not – this claim shows his ignorance of how these things worked. Originally, the Jews were supposed to bring a spotless lamb or dove to the temple for a sacrifice, or certain amounts of grain or other produce for an offering. As the Jews branched into pursuits other than agriculture and farming, and as they became more busy (sound familiar?), a cottage industry sprang up with people who would sell spotless lambs and doves and measures of produce that the people could purchase, then offer to the priests to take care of their responsibilities.

Scripture doesn’t condemn this aspect; and, as with pretty much any business, a little profit goes a long way to ensuring the business can continue. However, greed soon set in, and these vendors were not selling what they claimed to sell. Some of the animals were not spotless. False weights were used to charge people more than what they rightfully should have been charged. This was the reason Jesus went through the temple like a bull in a china shop, and the only time we see Him being physically violent. What was His problem? “Is it not written, My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations? But you have made it a den of thieves!” (Mark 11:17) “Den of thieves” was not class warfare; it was an accurate description of those selling 2 ounces of product for the price of 3, and those passing off blemished animals as spotless. This story (recorded nearly word-for-word by three of the Gospels) is about people scamming others, using their desire to worship God for their own monetary gain.

There will be (at least) a part 2; I still haven’t addressed his claim that Matthew 25 shows how to get to heaven (hint: don’t be rich), nor have I addressed the (red herring, IMO) of limited socialism within the early church, as described in the book of Acts. It will be linked below once it’s written.

(OK – that’s counting years I missed it.  Not missing it this year…)

This year, Sanctity of Human Life Sunday has been expanded to Sanctity of Human Life Week, beginning 17 Jan 10.  The image you see to the left will be my profile picture on Facebook for the duration of this week.  These days, with medical technology being what it is, the argument against abortion is really quite simple.  Back in 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, ultrasound was in its infancy (pardon the pun).  We had no clue, comparatively, to what goes on inside a womb the way we do today.  Most babies’ hearts are beating before their mothers realizes they are pregnant.  All the activity that goes on in there is amazing, and 3-D and 4-D ultrasounds have opened up this world to us.

What’s the difference if the baby is drinking through a tube or through its mouth?  We don’t euthanize preemies that have to have feeding tubes; and even after birth, the mother has the responsibility of feeding her baby.  There are periods during pregnancy now when, depending on what the mother wants, she can either have a preemie (who, though challenged, will probably make it), or an abortion.  Is that the “choice” that the pro-choice crowd is for?  Why is it that, during this most precarious time, when they need protecting the most, people feel entitled to snuff out that life?  There’s a reason that I call my abortion category “Prenatal Murder” – that’s exactly what it is.

And the numbers – these numbers are staggering!  Current Red Cross estimates put the Haiti earthquake casualty count at 45,000-50,000.  Around the world, there are 1,206,000 abortions a month; divide that by 30, you get 40,200 a day.  In the United States alone, we’re running at 1,206,200 a year, which means we take about two weeks to kill that many babies just in this country.

There’s a Haiti-a-day going on in the wombs of women around the world. These precious babies’ voices are too soft to be heard – will you speak up for them?

I’ve been asked by some, regarding my last post, what my solution is for the problems that plague our current health care system.  I was also accused of being too verbose – so, here is my solution, minus the qualifications that tend to make my explanations longer.  So, no griping about sweeping generalizations – just ask for clarification.     Without further ado, I present Dr. Daniel’s Prescription for Health Care Reform.

• Illegals Gone
  With the number of people who are in this country legally, we cannot support those who are not.  This extends to emergency care as well, because if we leave that open, we’ll just have illegals using the ER for their everyday health care.  Raises the stakes a little, but we can’t afford to fix everyone “for free.”  Additionally, insurers must verify citizenship for their standard policyholders.  They are still free to obtain health care at their own expense.
• End HMO/PPO Discounts
  This is the #1 thing that drives the cost of health care for the uninsured.  To get what they need, providers have artificially inflated their charges; so, when they apply the HMO/PPO discounts, they get what they wanted to begin with.  Make these post-markup, post-discount prices the standard prices, and health care becomes much more affordable, even for the self-insured (AKA uninsured).
• Choose Your Own Coverage
  There is no reason that a single male should buy a policy that, by law, must cover OB/GYN services.  People should have the ability to select only the coverage they need, and companies should have the right to sell it to them.  Don’t want prescriptions covered?  Don’t buy the coverage – by the $10 90-day supply from Wal-Mart instead.  This will let premiums be lower for people who only desire catastrophic coverage, and would bring health insurance more in line with homeowner and auto insurance.
• Just the Total, Please
  There is absolutely no reason that someone should receive 4 bills for one visit.  However, go to the ER, and you’ll likely end up with a hospital bill, a doctor’s group bill, a radiology bill, and maybe even a laboratory bill.  Funnel all billing through one of these; the hospital or doctor’s office is the one I would pick.  This will make it easy to get estimates and totals for the consumer, and I’m sure that, given this requirement, these organizations could come up with an efficient way to make it happen pretty quickly.  I see this as a parallel to the standard “Nutrition Facts” labels on food – one bill from one place, with no hidden charges.

There you have it.  Take four of these and call me in the morning if pain persists.

I made a Facebook status update earlier today where I said I hoped that the mismanaged “Cash for Clunkers” program (C4C hereafter) had caused some people to think about whether they wanted the same people in charge of their health care.  Of course, with the limited space for status updates, and my double-dose of verbosity (which is genetic, I thnk), I really didn’t have room to flesh out my thoughts on the matter.

A review would be in order here.  C4C is a government program that gives incentives for people to trade in cars deemed older and less fuel-efficient on a new car that is more fuel-efficient.  A consumer group has a FAQ.  A controversial provision of this bill is that these trade-ins must be completely destroyed – no parts can be salvaged at all, no tires, no body parts, nothing.  One of my Facebook friends described the process they used – drain the oil, replace it with water, and run the engine until it seizes up.  Anyway, this program was funded at $1 billion to go from July 24th to November 1st of this year.  Yet, a short week later, the news begins to break that the program is almost out of money.  There is talk of adding another $2 billion – that’s $3 billion of our tax dollars to buy and destroy perfectly functional cars, because they don’t fit someone’s idea of a “good car.”

Regarding the way these cars are being destroyed – this is the classic broken window fallacy, the economic theory that says that vandalism is good for the economy.  A boy breaks a window; the shopkeeper must get it replaced.  This benefits the window maker, which can benefit others in turn.  However, the fallacy is that it does not look at what the money that the shopkeeper had to use to fix the window might have otherwise been used to do.  For example, while the window maker advances, the shoe maker and baker, who might have received the money the shopkeeper would have spent, are hurt.  (As an aside – wouldn’t it be better to keep the window maker in business by providing windows for new business?  Oops – that was the greedy capitalist in me.)

Now, let’s look at the health care issue.  Nearly every proposal I’ve heard coming from Washington decries the number of uninsured people in this country, how much we pay for health care, and how bad the insurance companies are.  There are many ways to go about this; I’ll look at each of these in turn.  As we do, keep in mind what happened to the “bad” cars in C4C.

We hear bad, bad things about the number of uninsured Americans – the latest numbers have it about 47 million.  That’s a lot, right?  Maybe, but maybe not.  One thing that these stats do not take into account is the number of people who choose to be uninsured.  Many college students are uninsured by choice (or by lack of giving it a thought – that would have been me right after high school!).  The census bureau said that the number of college students was 15.9 million in 2004.  How about single people?  I certainly didn’t worry about health insurance when I was single.  The census bureau said in 2007 that of the 92 million single people, 60% had never been married at all, and 15 million were over 65.  Certainly not all of these are without insurance, but a good many may very well choose not to have it.  That leaves the ones that can’t afford it – we’ll look at ways to make it more affordable in our third point.

Next up is how much we pay for health care.  Yes, just like our military prowess, America is #1 in the world at spending per-capita on health care.  We are also #1 in the world at medical advances and technology.  These things do not come for free – what is the incentive for a company to develop the newest bang-up drug if they aren’t going to be able to make enough money on it to fund the research it took to develop it?  Altruism may be nice, but it doesn’t put food on the table.  While the exchange of money for services seems to be distasteful to some people, you’ll look long and hard to find a better motivator.  Why do doctors put themselves through years and years of education after most people are already out working?  For a few, they may just love their fellow man that much, but for the most part, it’s that American dream of making it, and having the things they want.  How does one acquire things?  Money.

All this talk about money brings us to those evil, horrible insurance companies.  I’ve dealt with them just as many of you have, and it’s frustrating to have things denied because a t wasn’t crossed or an i dotted.  However, let’s look at what we expect from insurance.  Does homeowner’s insurance cover carpet cleaning, painting inside and out, and re-weatherstripping the windows?  Does auto insurance cover oil changes, new tires, detailing, and radio upgrades?  Then why must any health insurance cover check-ups?  The litany of required services on some insurance providers is astounding – and, the consumer has no choice.  I don’t think I could go to a state in the Union and get an insurance plan that didn’t cover maternity; as a male, I really don’t think that’s coverage I need.  People view health insurance completely different from any other insurance.  Why is it that, if something exists, people think that their health insurance should cover it?  Some of these treatments or experimental procedures weren’t even in existence when the policy was written, but people think that they’re entitled to them.

This is where affordability comes in.  Let insurance companies customize plans, so that people can buy just what they want (catastrophic coverage, for example) and exclude what they don’t (TMJ).  End the ridiculous “discounted rate” on the billing – doctors have artificially raised their rates because they know that, for the most part, their patients’ insurance will only pay a portion of it.  The price should be the same for someone paying out-of-pocket as it is for the insurance companies.  (Back to auto insurance, does Ford offer Allstate a discount?  Yeah right.)

What happens with this is the regular free-market benefits.  First, the availability of health care goes up, because the people who opted out of “hypochondriac” coverage will not take up a doctor’s time for every sneeze and sniffle.  Second, there is an incentive for providers to get into the business, as the playing field is more level and less laden with red tape.  Third, people will be so happy that we’ll never have to hear about this ridiculous socialized health care mess ever again!  (Well, okay, maybe that last one is a stretch.)

Now, let’s look at C4C health care.  You’ll have politicians and government paper-pushers determining what’s covered and what isn’t, with their decisions holding the force of law.  The thresholds will be hard – the qualifying line is drawn in the cement as it hardens.  It will cost 10 times what “they” estimate – at least.  Wait times will be through the roof, as anyone who qualifies for something will get in line for it, whether they need it or not.  Over five or ten years, there will be a shortage of providers, because doctors will decide that law is a much more lucrative field.  And, one of the founding principles of our nation will have been sacrificed on the altar of good intentions.

I know which one I’d prefer.

Yes, in 100 days I’ve gone from “skeptically optimistic” to hoping that 3 terms of Republicans can stem the tide from 4 years of our current administration. For all of the left’s making fun of Bush, and VP Biden’s history of gaffes, who knew that the current administration would make them look downright composed?  It’s Amateur Hour at the White House, and our kids get to pay billions of dollars for us to watch!

Economics: F (only because F- isn’t technically a grade)
You would think that this would be the current administration’s strong spot, seeing that they won the election last year based on the crappy economy (or so they’d have you believe).  Yes, the fiscal irresponsibility of the final year of the Bush v2 administration looks miserly compared with this stimporkulus and budgets we’re being asked to finance. The graph to the right gives an illustration of the impact of the current budget, compared to budgets under Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2.  Just as the New Deal lengthened the Great Depression, these artificial attempts to “fix” the economy are actually doing it more harm.  Then they label those who are against it as dangerous – but more on that later.

National Security: D-
This one was not an F due to his quick response to the Somali pirates who had captured the captain of a US ship.  Regarding the F/A-22 cutbacks, these were being discussed even in the previous administration, and even so, the “cutback” still result in more airplanes being built and delivered to fill the order.  I don’t really have a good feeling one way or the other.  The F/A-22 has been in work a long time, and had a lot of money already.  To throw that away, when we used its predecessor for over 30 years, seems foolish to me.  However, with the services merging more and more operations, perhaps it’s smart to have a plane that’s built to specifications from all interested parties.  Time will tell.  The release of the CIA memos, though, was a bad move, which I discuss in the next subject below.

Foreign Affairs: F
How many ways are there to mess this up?  Maybe we should bow to another head of state.  Maybe we should give the Queen of England an iPod with your speeches?  How about giving 25 Region 1 DVDs to someone who can only legally play DVDs from Region 2?  Maybe we could use the term “England” to tick off a good portion of one of our strongest allies.  And these are the people who made fun of Bush?  Maybe they should’ve left some folks from the White House Protocol Office on staff to train the new folks.  I know that it was Kerry’s slogan and not Obama’s, but isn’t this the party that wants to make us “respected around the world”?  Ignoring years of tradition and protocol is not the way to make that happen.

And, the release of the CIA memos has made us look even worse.  We have people hyperventilating on both sides over whether waterboarding is torture.  The ones who do us harm know that they don’t have to do anything for a while, because we’re doing it to ourselves.  What the administration doesn’t seem to have thought through is that, though in this country, it may be easy to pin all that on the Bush administration, to the rest of the world, it’s still “America” that did it.  And, if they know that we don’t have the stomach for it (would it really have been that out-of-line to put a caterpillar in a room with a terrorist?), their job is easier.  The CIA agents are demoralized, and the enemy is emboldened.  Call it what you will – naive, oblivious, amateur hour – it’s dangerous, and it’s made our country weaker because of it.

And, to those hyperventilating – if you’re ever captured by them, you’d better pray that waterboarding is the worst thing they do to you.  Because we’re humane, we’ve come up with ways to make people think that they’re being tortured, when they’re really not.  Torture has lifelong implications to your health and mobility; John McCain can’t lift his hand above his shoulder – that didn’t come from waterboarding.

(Even the decision to stick by the Iraqi withdrawal timetable couldn’t raise his grade in this subject.)

Domestic Affairs: F
Janet Napolitano is a joke.  “Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it’s been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there.” “Crossing the border is not a crime….” Tax Day Tea Party protestors are dangerous right-wing extremists, and they could easily recruit returning combat veterans.  I don’t feel that our homeland is very secure – I feel that this department is now being run as a playground for political paybacks.  Then there’s Hilda Solis, the Labor Secretary confirmed because the Republicans just got tired of fighting.  I saw one interview on TV where she must’ve claimed “but we’ve only been here 5 weeks” about 7 different times.  That’s not the way a leader talks.  An amateur hour two-fer.

Social Affairs: F
I believe I covered Obama’s revocation of the Bush executive orders regarding federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.  (I’ve bolded the important parts, because I’m sick and tired of the liberal “You’re opposed to science!” mantra.  No, we’re not – we’re opposed to the government paying for research that destroys unborn humans, especially when it has shown no signs of finding anything, but other, similar, non-lethal-to-the-donor research has.  (And, check out #1 under “Adult Stem Cell Advantages.”)  What you fund, you get more of – fund more experiments on dead babies, you get more dead babies.  I happen to be against dead babies, born or unborn.)  When Obama rescinded that executive order, he also rescinded one that allows funding of ethical experiments.  A good analysis of what that means is here.

He gets a pat on the back for supporting traditional marriage; however, I think that battle is lost.  The demise of marriage came not from non-traditionalists, but from people who decided that a promise of forever can be undone by a piece of paper signed by a judge.

Well, he’s got a solid 0.2 GPA headed into day 101 – nowhere to go but up, eh?

Earlier this week, President Barack Obama reversed a long-standing policy, now allowing Federal funds to go to organizations that provide abortions or abortion counseling.  The Sanctity of Life post is still coming, but I wanted to get this out there.  How long before Obama’s death toll surpasses that of the last 8 years of our “unjust war” on terrorism?  I’m thinking March 2009…

And his logic continues to astound me…

“It is time we end the politicization of this issue,” Obama said.

So, to end politicization, we’ll just declare one side the winner.  It truly saddens me that part of my tax money will be used to kill babies in third-world countries.

Via Cassy Fiano, we get a transcript and a link to video of an interview of Rick Warren by Ann Curry. As you probably know, Rick is the pastor of Saddleback Church in California and the author of the Purpose-Driven Life books. He has also been selected to deliver the invocation at the upcoming inauguration, which really has the gay community’s collective panties in a wad.  Me, I think it’s funny seeing these special interest groups get their first twinges of buyer’s remorse.

Anyway, enough babbling from me.  Here’s the transcript excerpt…

ANN CURRY: Your position [on gay marriage] has raised the spectre that you are homophobic.

Warren responds with a hearty laugh.

CURRY: You laugh, but that is why gay people are angry.

RICK WARREN: Well, I could give you a hundred –

CURRY: Are you homophobic?

WARREN: I don’t know any church in America that’s done more to help the gay community, particularly with AIDS, than Saddleback. But the hate speech against me is incendiary.

CURRY: If science finds that this is biological, that people are born gay, would you change your position?

WARREN: No, and the reason why is because we all have biological predispositions. I’m naturally inclined to have sex with every beautiful woman I see. But that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.

I think this is just awesome.  It’s succinct, it’s personal, and it illustrates that his views on sexual relations are, in fact, not bigoted in the least.