Down in Indiana there is a real scandal brewing. An ambulance chasing attorney named Tony Zirkle is running for the Republican nomination for congress in the second district - that is South Bend. (Thankfully he has an opponent!) This guy spoke at a birthday bash for Crazy Adolph Hitler put on by the National Socialist Workers Party. (That's the Nazi's.) He also said that segregation should be re-examined. According to Zirkle we would have six states for the blacks and forty-four states for the rest of us. I'm not sure what he proposes to do with mulattoes -half black, half white, and the quadrones - a quarter black and three quarter white. And what do you do with all the Arabs in Dearborn? That's almost a small state's worth of people by itself. (Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot, those are fellow descendants of Shem! Right!)
The bottom line is that this is disgraceful in the party of Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant. It is the Republicans who freed the blacks from slavery. It is the Republicans who joined with a Democratic president, against the majority of Democrats in Congress, to pass the Voting Rights Act. (Remember the filibuster attempt by Wm. J. Fulbright and Al Gore, Sr.) And it is Democrats who re-enslaved blacks to the welfare state. There is no place in the Republican Party for this sort of asinine male cow manure.
Dr. Gene Edward Veith in his book Modern Fascism explains that one has to give themselves over to the logic of irrationality to be a fascist. Zirkle appears to be poster child for this very sort of irrationality. His insanity does not in any way represent Republican values! Period!!!!
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Bush Get's an A for Today
Today President Bush gave a speech on the energy problems facing our country. He laid that blame on a paralyzed and incompetent congress. That's right where the blame belongs. Congress has been feckless and brainless my whole life. Rare are the congressmen and senators who actually stand for something - Duncan Hunter, J. C. Watts, John Kaisach, Bob Dornen, Spencer Abraham and few others. Even Newt Gingritch fell into the standard political traps when he was Speaker of the House.
Bush advocated deregulating the oil industry so that they can open new oil fields and build new refineries. He especially brought up opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). He noted that opposition to drilling in ANWR is now considered a litmus test for environmental orthodoxy.
I would go further. I would say that opposition to new drilling in our current context is unpatriotic. Buying oil overseas has become a national security issue. We are actually funding our own enemies. Further, the price of imported oil fluctuates with the value of the dollar. Biofuels, as they exist today are no answer at all. It places energy and food into competition with each other. Plus, biofuels are generally simply energy conversions. So you have to have another source of energy to make biofuels. I would advocate an all out energy offensive. New drilling anywhere there may be oil including under the ocean and the great lakes. We need new refineries. We should locate all the contaminated industrial sites and let them be developed as refineries. (We sure don't want to put sub-divisions on those sites!) In addition we should build new hydro-electric dams, which, if engineered properly would create new recreational lakes and very valuable lake front property. We should replace all the existing aging nuclear power plants, plus build at least that many additional plants. We should also build new coal fired plants. Aren't those dirty? Not the newest ones. With filtration systems on the stacks, coal can be as clean as any other fuel. Following this plan, we could, in just a few years be energy independent. An energy independent U.S. is much more stable and secure, both economically and militarily.
Bush advocated deregulating the oil industry so that they can open new oil fields and build new refineries. He especially brought up opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). He noted that opposition to drilling in ANWR is now considered a litmus test for environmental orthodoxy.
I would go further. I would say that opposition to new drilling in our current context is unpatriotic. Buying oil overseas has become a national security issue. We are actually funding our own enemies. Further, the price of imported oil fluctuates with the value of the dollar. Biofuels, as they exist today are no answer at all. It places energy and food into competition with each other. Plus, biofuels are generally simply energy conversions. So you have to have another source of energy to make biofuels. I would advocate an all out energy offensive. New drilling anywhere there may be oil including under the ocean and the great lakes. We need new refineries. We should locate all the contaminated industrial sites and let them be developed as refineries. (We sure don't want to put sub-divisions on those sites!) In addition we should build new hydro-electric dams, which, if engineered properly would create new recreational lakes and very valuable lake front property. We should replace all the existing aging nuclear power plants, plus build at least that many additional plants. We should also build new coal fired plants. Aren't those dirty? Not the newest ones. With filtration systems on the stacks, coal can be as clean as any other fuel. Following this plan, we could, in just a few years be energy independent. An energy independent U.S. is much more stable and secure, both economically and militarily.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Lincoln Day Times Two
This past weekend was a big one for politics up here in the north woods of Wisconsin. On Friday night we had our annual Lincoln Day dinner for the Polk County Republican Party. Our featured speaker was Tom Burnett, Sr. His son, Tom Burnett, Jr. was one of the leaders of the resistance on flight 93 - the one that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11. It was great look at a true American hero and a reminder that we must persevere in the war on terror. I also met a young man who had served in Iraq. If I remember the name right he's Steve Winkler. He's from the Osceola area. Steve also expressed the idea that we must finish the war on terror on our terms.
Another great moment was the challenge offered by executive committee member Tom Magnafici. Tom actually grew up in Ronald Reagan's home town of Dixon, Illinois. He challenged us stand for conservative principles. Tom also made some comments about Barak Obama. He's read both of Obama's books and feels that this man is left wing extremist. Tom also had a little trivia contest. I won a flight 93 t-shirt (which Bonnie says shes confiscating for her own use) by knowing which presidents signed the Declaration of Independence.
On Sunday night I attended the Burnett county Republican Party Lincoln Day party. Again it was an awesome evening. I met Supreme Court justice elect Gableman. He is a humble, soft spoken man who nevertheless has an incredible presence about him. He defeated an incumbent justice who was very liberal. We learned more about how this miracle was achieved. Sheriff Dean Roland called all the other sheriff's in the state and simply told them what a great judge Gableman was in Burnett county. He had the support of more than 70% of elected law enforcement officials across the state.
Another speaker was Dave Ross, the mayer of Superior, Wisconsin. Ross explained that Republicans can win consistently in Democratic areas simply by making clear promises and then fulfilling them. He recently won reelection campaigning on the theme: He did what he said. It reminded me that Contract with America failed precisely because most of it was never enacted and most of those elected on those promises simply proved to be politicians.
Three candidates spoke at both events, incumbent state senator Shela Harsdorf, Dan Mielke, running against Dave Obey for the U.S House and Kent Muschinske running for state assembly. Shela is being targeted by the Madison dems, as she was four years ago. But she's been a great senator and will be a strong candidate. Dan Mielke is a long time political activist who has been though many political battles. He seems to have a strong plan to win over Democratic voters. Kent Muschinske has served for the last few years as the chairman of the Polk County Republican party. He's an airline pilot and hobby farmer, who as also taught ag classes at the high school level and served in the Air Force during both Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He also will be a very strong candidate.
Another great moment was the challenge offered by executive committee member Tom Magnafici. Tom actually grew up in Ronald Reagan's home town of Dixon, Illinois. He challenged us stand for conservative principles. Tom also made some comments about Barak Obama. He's read both of Obama's books and feels that this man is left wing extremist. Tom also had a little trivia contest. I won a flight 93 t-shirt (which Bonnie says shes confiscating for her own use) by knowing which presidents signed the Declaration of Independence.
On Sunday night I attended the Burnett county Republican Party Lincoln Day party. Again it was an awesome evening. I met Supreme Court justice elect Gableman. He is a humble, soft spoken man who nevertheless has an incredible presence about him. He defeated an incumbent justice who was very liberal. We learned more about how this miracle was achieved. Sheriff Dean Roland called all the other sheriff's in the state and simply told them what a great judge Gableman was in Burnett county. He had the support of more than 70% of elected law enforcement officials across the state.
Another speaker was Dave Ross, the mayer of Superior, Wisconsin. Ross explained that Republicans can win consistently in Democratic areas simply by making clear promises and then fulfilling them. He recently won reelection campaigning on the theme: He did what he said. It reminded me that Contract with America failed precisely because most of it was never enacted and most of those elected on those promises simply proved to be politicians.
Three candidates spoke at both events, incumbent state senator Shela Harsdorf, Dan Mielke, running against Dave Obey for the U.S House and Kent Muschinske running for state assembly. Shela is being targeted by the Madison dems, as she was four years ago. But she's been a great senator and will be a strong candidate. Dan Mielke is a long time political activist who has been though many political battles. He seems to have a strong plan to win over Democratic voters. Kent Muschinske has served for the last few years as the chairman of the Polk County Republican party. He's an airline pilot and hobby farmer, who as also taught ag classes at the high school level and served in the Air Force during both Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He also will be a very strong candidate.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Sermon for April 26-27
Sermon
The Sixth Sunday of Easter
April 26-27
Text: Acts 17:16-31
Dear Friends in Christ,
We live at a time where there is a great deal of controversy about evangelism. We have great divisions, that pierce to the very heart of the faith, as to how we are supposed to proclaim Christ to a dying world. No place do we find a better exposition on the nature of evangelism and mission work than in the16th and 17th Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. Here we see how mission work is filled with success and failure, as well as conflict and violence. The thing that this chapter makes clear in no uncertain terms, is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is an offense to our sin filled world.
Our story really begins in chapter 16: “And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them. So, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing there, urging him and saying, "Come over to Macedonia and help us." And when Paul had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.” (Acts 16:6-10) This passage tells us several things. Paul had one plan and God had another. He saw the mission field in the province of Asia being ripe for the harvest. But God said, no, not there. The other point is rather incidental, but I will point out nonetheless. Notice that the pronouns shift in the middle of the passage. From this we see that Luke, the author of Acts, joined Paul’s party in the city of Troas. From here they went to Philippi where they made some converts but also were at the center of riot and were thrown in jail. Then they went to Thessaoinica. The story repeats itself. The majority of the jew reject Paul’s message and stir up the crowds to run them out of town. About this time, one has to wonder what Paul and his companions are thinking. God, are you sure this was what you wanted us to do? Then they went to Berea where we read a most interesting passage, indeed: “Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” (Acts 17:11) Ah, finally, success. Paul and his companions can get on to building up their megachurch. This must be what God had in mind. But no, Jews from Thessalonica came over and stirred up trouble. They were afraid for Paul’s life. So the church made a fateful decision. For his own safety, Paul had to go. So Silas and Timothy stayed behind to quickly finish the work that they had started. Some other men escorted Paul from Berea to Athens. You get the impression that this was almost like a kidnaping - that Paul wasn’t given much choice in the matter.
Paul was probably told to lay low in Athens until Timothy and Silas could join him. But no, Paul couldn’t shut his mouth. He immediately interrupts his vacation by telling people about Jesus. Soon he was preaching on Mars Hill to all the philosophers of Athens. But in the end he only made a few converts. From there he went to Corinth and once again was arrested. This time, however, he was brought before the provincial governor, one Lucius Junius Gallio - no relation to the wine makers. Gallio is the brother of the philosopher Annaeus Seneca. The reference to Gallio places Paul in Corinth in 52 A.D. about 18 years after his dramatic conversion to the Christian faith.
On the surface, Paul’s work in Macedonia and Greece appears to be a failure. He won few converts and was run out of nearly every town. This appeared to be hard soil indeed for planting the seed of the Gospel. But three very important things happened. First, Paul brought his message to the most learned men of Athens. Though many rejected it, the idea was planted among them. They would continue to discuss this new idea. Paul’s greatest success came in Corinth, though the congregation was plagued by internal troubles from the start. But Corinth was one of the busiest sea ports in the world at that time. Any idea that was present in Corinth would quickly spread throughout the Roman world and beyond. Finally, Paul, by speaking to Gallio, penetrated the highest circles of Roman society and government.
We have been entrusted by God with a great treasure. We have been given, as a free gift, the forgiveness of our sins and eternal life in the light and peace of heaven. This was done for us by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ when He died on the cross. This gift was sealed and certified by the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. And so we too will we rise in our body to life with Christ. It is God’s desire that all men come to faith and be saved. God also tells us that many will reject that message. What seems most offensive to people is the “resurrection of the body.” Christianity is unique in this teaching. Most religions that teach an afterlife, teach that only the soul or spirit lives on. This is what offended the philosophers of Athens. Because, like many people today, they believed that all things physical are bad. We as Christians, assert with St. Paul that God made the entire material universe. In Christ, God saved all men from sin and death. And God, in Christ, raises us bodily from the dead. As we share this, probably ten people will reject it for every one that believes it. Many of those who reject God’s teaching of life will become angry that we teach this. They will speak against us, or in some cases perhaps even seek to harm us. We must remember what happened to St. Paul. The same will happen to us. And remember the ratio that I gave - ten to one. We must remember that the Gospel is the most offensive message in the history of the world. Far more people reject it than believe it. We have some in our synod who think that they can package and soft peddle the gospel in such a way that it does not offend. This is foolishness. Only a Gospel that offends can save. Because it is the very idea that we are sinners in need of a savior in the first place that the world rejects. It is the very idea that God would save us that the world rejects. It is the very idea that the dead rise that the world rejects. So it is the very heart of our message that offends the world. If you make the message unoffensive, you also gut it of all Christian content.
St. Paul probably would have had more earthly success and have worked more peacefully in Asia. God had other ideas. God wanted the Gospel proclaimed in Macedonia and Greece. For from there, and those handful of converts, the Word would travel all over the world. From the head in the clouds philosophers of Athens and the debauched sailors and merchants of Corinth, that offending Gospel would spread. Many would hear and reject God’s saving words. But others, would come to faith in Christ and be saved. So it was then, thus it is also today. We offend to save. There is no way around this. For the very idea of God dying for the sins of the world is the most terribly offensive message ever uttered - and the most beautiful.
Amen!
The Sixth Sunday of Easter
April 26-27
Text: Acts 17:16-31
Dear Friends in Christ,
We live at a time where there is a great deal of controversy about evangelism. We have great divisions, that pierce to the very heart of the faith, as to how we are supposed to proclaim Christ to a dying world. No place do we find a better exposition on the nature of evangelism and mission work than in the16th and 17th Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. Here we see how mission work is filled with success and failure, as well as conflict and violence. The thing that this chapter makes clear in no uncertain terms, is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is an offense to our sin filled world.
Our story really begins in chapter 16: “And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them. So, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing there, urging him and saying, "Come over to Macedonia and help us." And when Paul had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.” (Acts 16:6-10) This passage tells us several things. Paul had one plan and God had another. He saw the mission field in the province of Asia being ripe for the harvest. But God said, no, not there. The other point is rather incidental, but I will point out nonetheless. Notice that the pronouns shift in the middle of the passage. From this we see that Luke, the author of Acts, joined Paul’s party in the city of Troas. From here they went to Philippi where they made some converts but also were at the center of riot and were thrown in jail. Then they went to Thessaoinica. The story repeats itself. The majority of the jew reject Paul’s message and stir up the crowds to run them out of town. About this time, one has to wonder what Paul and his companions are thinking. God, are you sure this was what you wanted us to do? Then they went to Berea where we read a most interesting passage, indeed: “Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” (Acts 17:11) Ah, finally, success. Paul and his companions can get on to building up their megachurch. This must be what God had in mind. But no, Jews from Thessalonica came over and stirred up trouble. They were afraid for Paul’s life. So the church made a fateful decision. For his own safety, Paul had to go. So Silas and Timothy stayed behind to quickly finish the work that they had started. Some other men escorted Paul from Berea to Athens. You get the impression that this was almost like a kidnaping - that Paul wasn’t given much choice in the matter.
Paul was probably told to lay low in Athens until Timothy and Silas could join him. But no, Paul couldn’t shut his mouth. He immediately interrupts his vacation by telling people about Jesus. Soon he was preaching on Mars Hill to all the philosophers of Athens. But in the end he only made a few converts. From there he went to Corinth and once again was arrested. This time, however, he was brought before the provincial governor, one Lucius Junius Gallio - no relation to the wine makers. Gallio is the brother of the philosopher Annaeus Seneca. The reference to Gallio places Paul in Corinth in 52 A.D. about 18 years after his dramatic conversion to the Christian faith.
On the surface, Paul’s work in Macedonia and Greece appears to be a failure. He won few converts and was run out of nearly every town. This appeared to be hard soil indeed for planting the seed of the Gospel. But three very important things happened. First, Paul brought his message to the most learned men of Athens. Though many rejected it, the idea was planted among them. They would continue to discuss this new idea. Paul’s greatest success came in Corinth, though the congregation was plagued by internal troubles from the start. But Corinth was one of the busiest sea ports in the world at that time. Any idea that was present in Corinth would quickly spread throughout the Roman world and beyond. Finally, Paul, by speaking to Gallio, penetrated the highest circles of Roman society and government.
We have been entrusted by God with a great treasure. We have been given, as a free gift, the forgiveness of our sins and eternal life in the light and peace of heaven. This was done for us by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ when He died on the cross. This gift was sealed and certified by the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. And so we too will we rise in our body to life with Christ. It is God’s desire that all men come to faith and be saved. God also tells us that many will reject that message. What seems most offensive to people is the “resurrection of the body.” Christianity is unique in this teaching. Most religions that teach an afterlife, teach that only the soul or spirit lives on. This is what offended the philosophers of Athens. Because, like many people today, they believed that all things physical are bad. We as Christians, assert with St. Paul that God made the entire material universe. In Christ, God saved all men from sin and death. And God, in Christ, raises us bodily from the dead. As we share this, probably ten people will reject it for every one that believes it. Many of those who reject God’s teaching of life will become angry that we teach this. They will speak against us, or in some cases perhaps even seek to harm us. We must remember what happened to St. Paul. The same will happen to us. And remember the ratio that I gave - ten to one. We must remember that the Gospel is the most offensive message in the history of the world. Far more people reject it than believe it. We have some in our synod who think that they can package and soft peddle the gospel in such a way that it does not offend. This is foolishness. Only a Gospel that offends can save. Because it is the very idea that we are sinners in need of a savior in the first place that the world rejects. It is the very idea that God would save us that the world rejects. It is the very idea that the dead rise that the world rejects. So it is the very heart of our message that offends the world. If you make the message unoffensive, you also gut it of all Christian content.
St. Paul probably would have had more earthly success and have worked more peacefully in Asia. God had other ideas. God wanted the Gospel proclaimed in Macedonia and Greece. For from there, and those handful of converts, the Word would travel all over the world. From the head in the clouds philosophers of Athens and the debauched sailors and merchants of Corinth, that offending Gospel would spread. Many would hear and reject God’s saving words. But others, would come to faith in Christ and be saved. So it was then, thus it is also today. We offend to save. There is no way around this. For the very idea of God dying for the sins of the world is the most terribly offensive message ever uttered - and the most beautiful.
Amen!
Friday, April 25, 2008
The Missouri Synod and the Fourth Commandment
Fourth Commandment (As Lutherans number them): Honor Your Father and Mother
In recent letters from LCMS President Kieschnick and the Council of Presidents (COP) we warned to make sure we fulfill our Fourth Commandment obligations to our elected district and Synodical officals. They invoke the Fourth Commandment saying that the rank and file pastors and lay people have a duty to obey them. This is not so. In fact the obligation under the Fourth Commandment, in our political structure runs exactly the other direction. The elected officials of district and Synod are set aside to be servants of the whole. Of course when they speak correctly from the Word of God, as Dr. Walther teaches us in his book Church and Ministry, we must obey. After all, if we were to oppose them at such a time, we would be speaking against God Himself. Nevertheless, the authority in our political structure is placed with our congregations and expressed through our district and Synodical conventions. Far from the rank and file pastors and lay people having to obey our elected officials, our officials must obey us when we speak through our conventions. Again there are limits. They can never be bound to act contrary to the Word of God. But in other matters, our conventions are the final authority in the Missouri Synod.
Now if we are not allowed to speak of the matters at dispute within the synod, how can our congregations make a wise choice in selecting delegates? How can our congregations instruct our delegates? How can the delegates, who collectively hold Fourth Commandment authority over the synod, make informed and wise decisions? Dr. Walther, the first president of Synod, understanding this, insisted that anyone who has a concern and has access to a printing press was free to circulate his concerns as he thought best.
In recent letters from LCMS President Kieschnick and the Council of Presidents (COP) we warned to make sure we fulfill our Fourth Commandment obligations to our elected district and Synodical officals. They invoke the Fourth Commandment saying that the rank and file pastors and lay people have a duty to obey them. This is not so. In fact the obligation under the Fourth Commandment, in our political structure runs exactly the other direction. The elected officials of district and Synod are set aside to be servants of the whole. Of course when they speak correctly from the Word of God, as Dr. Walther teaches us in his book Church and Ministry, we must obey. After all, if we were to oppose them at such a time, we would be speaking against God Himself. Nevertheless, the authority in our political structure is placed with our congregations and expressed through our district and Synodical conventions. Far from the rank and file pastors and lay people having to obey our elected officials, our officials must obey us when we speak through our conventions. Again there are limits. They can never be bound to act contrary to the Word of God. But in other matters, our conventions are the final authority in the Missouri Synod.
Now if we are not allowed to speak of the matters at dispute within the synod, how can our congregations make a wise choice in selecting delegates? How can our congregations instruct our delegates? How can the delegates, who collectively hold Fourth Commandment authority over the synod, make informed and wise decisions? Dr. Walther, the first president of Synod, understanding this, insisted that anyone who has a concern and has access to a printing press was free to circulate his concerns as he thought best.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
The Eighth Commandment and the Cloak that Covers Evil
Over the last twenty plus years, going back to the time when I was finishing up at Concordia, Ann Arbor, I have heard one screed on the Eight Commandment after the other. But what is always missed is that the commandment cuts both ways. We are to bear true witness. That means we are to call evil, well... evil. Sometimes the best construction we can legitimately put on something is to explain that is a public sin. The Eighth Commandment is given to protect people's reputations from false attack. But it is also given so that we can warn God's people when a wolf is in their midst. In the end what is most important is the truth. As St. Paul says, "Love... rejoices with the truth." (I Corinthians 13:4-6 ESV) So any attempt to use the Eighth Commandment to suppress the truth turns the command into a cloak which covers evil - and is ultimately, unloving.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
