I’ve also shifted from being self-employed full-time to working for a company full-time (and sometimes overtime) while keeping up my business on a part-time basis.

So I just haven’t had the time to write. Also with the change in search engine algorithms and social media algorithms I was seeing a decline in traffic from those sources even before I started The Iowa Torch.

I’ve shifted to writing once to twice a week (sometimes more, sometimes less) for my Substack newsletter and have had some paid subscribers. My articles go straight to your inbox. No more hassling with algorithms that reward click bait and online rage.

Caffeinated Thoughts has been in existence since 2006, and had its own domain name since 2010. So almost 18 years and over 10,000 articles later, this website has been a big part of my life making it hard to let go.

However, it’s past time to close out this chapter and officially say Caffeinated Thoughts is officially done. This domain will still be active for a few months and then will forward to my Substack newsletter. A long-term archive can be found at https://caffeinatedthoughts.415communications.com that will be in place after the domain begins forwarding.

Thank you so much for your readership, and I hope that you’ll continue to be a reader at my Substack.

P.S. If anyone is interested in purchasing the CaffeinatedThoughts.com domain name I’ve owned for over 14 years, please contact me at shane@415communications.com with a fair price.

Progressives and liberals have embraced the radical Modern Monetary Theory, which states that since the federal government has the ability to print money it does not have to worry about deficits or debt. This theory argues that the federal government can have a “blank check” to continue to spend without any consequences. As an example, having the United States Mint produce a platinum coin that would be “worth” $1 trillion. Modern Monetary Theory repeals the laws of economics and fiscal sanity. It also ignores the numerous examples from history that demonstrate what happens to nations when they simply just print money. This is why Senator Braun has introduced a measure that would condemn Modern Monetary Theory. 

It is this reckless philosophy that has led to record high inflation. Consumers across the nation continue to not only pay more at the grocery store, but inflation is destroying their earnings and purchasing power. Families and businesses are forced every day to make difficult decisions about their budgets. This is why Senator Braun has introduced the Fight Inflation Act through Balanced Budgets Act of 2023 and the Make Rules Matter Act. For too long Congress has not only sidestepped fiscal responsibility, but through institutional rules, is able to waive budget rules in order to increase spending. Senator Braun is attempting to correct this by making it more difficult to waive budget rules. 

Senator Braun is also calling for the federal budget to be balanced and has proposed a plan to meet this objective. The Braun Budget plan would place a cap on total spending and would balance the budget over a 10 year period and save taxpayers $4.5 trillion. The Braun Budget proposal would also require much needed transparency and force Congress to review government programs. A large portion of the federal budget is on auto-pilot and this not only increases spending, but allows wasteful and unnecessary programs to continue. 

Senator Braun’s proposal is also respectful of Social Security and Medicare, and it would extend the life of both trust funds. It would also make the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent, which when passed created economic prosperity and provided much needed tax relief for families and businesses. Opponents of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act argue that it has led to massive deficits, but the opposite actually occurred. Revenues increased as a result of the tax cut, which demonstrates that the federal government has a spending problem. Senator Braun’s budget proposal would make other meaningful reforms to the federal government, but it would provide a path forward for fiscal sustainability. 

The national debt is not just a serious economic problem, but it is also a threat to national security. Senator Braun should be commended for his leadership in trying to restore fiscal conservatism to the federal government. Further, Senator Braun has not forgotten that the Republican Party, the conservative party, must be the champion for sound economic policies and to stop the economic insanity of Modern Monetary Theory. 

Craig Keener was a classmate of mine at Central Bible College from 1978-1982. I knew him as one of the most pious and brilliant but humble servants of God I knew. He went to seminary and eventually became a professor at Asbury Seminary. The video below is his take on the so called Asbury Revival that took place in the University next door in Wilmore, Kentucky.

Below is an email interview I had with Dr. Keener concerning some questions I had about what was happening.

Tell us a little about your conversion.

I was converted from atheism through people who shared with me the gospel on the street; I argued with them for 45 minutes, then walked home so convicted by the Holy Spirit that I was converted within maybe 45 more minutes after I got home. I had studied different religions and philosophies, but this was different. The true and living God was in the room with me, so my atheism was sunk and I would’ve been a complete idiot not to give my life to him! “God, I don’t know how Jesus dying for me and rising from the dead makes me right with you–what those guys told me. But if that’s what you’re saying, I’ll believe it. “

“But I don’t know how to be saved, so if you want to save me, I need you to do it yourself.” Suddenly I felt something rushing through my body as I’d never felt before. I was scared, not understanding what had happened, but now believed that God was real and his message about Jesus was true. I, therefore, resolved to be a Christian, though recognizing I needed to apologize to Christians for making fun of them. Two days later I walked into a church, and the pastor asked me if I was sure I was “saved.” I didn’t know if what I had done two days earlier was the “correct” procedure, so he led me in the sinner’s prayer, and this time I felt the overwhelming sense of God’s presence again. I was so overwhelmed that I could only worship this awesome and gracious God, but I knew my praise could be adequate for him only if he gave me the words to do it.

What are your thoughts on the First Great Awakening? and the 2nd Great Awakening? The Azusa Street Revival?

That Calvinists (such as Whitefield and Edwards) dominated the First Great Awakening on this side of the Atlantic and Arminians dominated the Second Great Awakening should warn us against supposing that God pours out his Spirit only on his children with this or that theology. He blesses us because we are his children in Christ, not because we merit it on our own account. There have also been different kinds of awakenings or revivals in history.

What has happened at Asbury is closer to the template of college awakenings, including past Asbury revivals. (I think also of the postwar revival in schools in Nigeria in the 1960s; in the US, the Haystack Prayer Meeting propelled workers into missions.) Some events we call awakenings consisted of various revivals, and altogether lasted for decades. The Second Great Awakening was like that; indeed, the Methodist church then grew, from Francis Asbury’s arrival in the US until the time of his death 40 years later, 1000 times. And of course the Azusa Street Revival, though only a few years at its height, propelled so many workers into mission that there are now estimated to be more than half a billion Pentecostals and charismatics in the world. Admittedly, those so classified by sociologists are an amorphous group, but even at minimal estimates they remain the second largest block in Christendom next to the Roman Catholic Church, with which they overlap.

Were the recent events at Asbury precipitated by a particular sermon?  During the time of these services, was there regular preaching, or was it primarily prayer and singing? 

Prayer and singing dominated, as in the Welsh Revival, but because of a sense of God’s awesome majesty that was too palpable to do otherwise than to give God honor. When you’re in God’s presence, you can’t boast. It humbles you. A chief characteristic of this experience was what the leaders called “radical humility” and unity before the cross. They kept those up front nameless, preserving the revival’s sanctity by honoring the Lord alone. While that was the focus, however, there were regular moments of Scripture readings from students, testimonies of how people had been touched, and preaching (including preaching the gospel of Christ and calls for consecration and reminders of God’s love and healing for those who know they need him).

Do you remember anything similar from your days at Central Bible College in Springfield?

I remember times at CBC when we were so overwhelmed by God’s presence after an outpouring during chapel that we could only worship. Sometimes we may have been trying to get to class but we ended up lining the halls on the way just worshiping the Lord. It wasn’t 24-7 prayer, but that’s not unique either–International House of Prayer in Kansas City has been doing that for a long time, and it characterized the early Moravian revival for a lot longer (about 100 years!)

Gary McGee, who taught us at CBC and later at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, wrote about outpourings of the Spirit in India and Indonesia in the 1800s, and of course, we’re familiar with 20th-century ones.The outpouring at Pandita Ramabai’s orphanage in India in 1905 or the 1965 outpouring in West Timor which, is said, to have begun with a sound like a mighty rushing wind. God does not always do things the same way, but may we welcome whatever he does!

While there is no way to know where the Spirit will blow, is there any reason to think this will last?  And if it does, what will that look like?

One pattern in Luke-Acts is that outpourings of the Spirit, individual or collective, often follow prayer (cf. Luke 3:21-22; 11:13; Acts 1:14; 4:31; 8:15). That has often been true in subsequent history as well, for example, concerts of prayer during the First Great Awakening that led to the Second. People in the Asbury community had not forgotten the earlier Asbury revivals, such as 1905, 1908, 1950, and 1970, and prayer for another one has continued over decades. What happened on the university campus has not happened on this scale here for 50 years. It’s not about the place, but an ethos that welcomes the outpouring of the Spirit and honors God’s holiness is far likelier to experience it than a place resistant to it. If we look at past Asbury revivals as a template, those who experienced the heart of it were never the same and went out to change the world for Christ, our worthy king, often in intercultural missions.

Some people, who don’t know you or what you believe, thought you were calling for an end to the revival. Here’s your chance to set them straight.

 I was disappointed to hear about the public phase being wound down, but Asbury had become a pilgrimage site too small for all those coming, and the vision was for the outpouring to be dispersed beyond Asbury. So the university showed hospitality but also set a limit, beyond which they needed to keep the focus on training the students. The leaders decided that after prayer together. I trust their leadership. I posted a Facebook post marveling at all the people who had come, overwhelmed in an awed and amazed and joyful way, but warning (based on the announcement already made) that Asbury would be transitioning out of the current public phase to something more logistically sustainable. 100,000 people came through here during the public phase–and Wilmore is a town of 6000.

Not to sound unspiritual, but there were more people than toilets in Wilmore much of the time, and this can be a matter of significance for some people’s bladders. Anyway, it was a post on my personal Facebook page, and someone in the media took it out of its wider context of the prior public announcement and made the headline, “Professors Calls For An End to the ‘Public Phase’ of the Revival.” To their credit, they did later dial that line of reasoning back as several of us protested that this was not what I said. I think it was an honest misinterpretation. But I did get a good bit of pushback from some people outside our community denouncing me as an enemy of revival.

Since I have been praying pretty much daily for years for this outpouring to happen, that’s kind of sad; not everyone zealous for revival is equally informed in the Spirit’s insights or fruit, it seems. (Though they were far more generous in their responses than many critics of the outpouring, many of whom have engaged in persistent misrepresentation. That has happened at every outpouring in history, starting from the Day of Pentecost when critics supposed the worshipers drunk, so criticism is no surprise. It is disappointing, however, when it takes the form of slander from self-professed lovers of God from whom I would have expected greater integrity.) 

Anything else you want to add, that I did not cover?

In summary, we are grateful for this unexpected gift from God and the privilege of being here at this time. My wife Médine has often been helping in praying with those who come forward. I have been involved in prayer in an intercessor room, functioning as a doorkeeper one night, working the early night shift with students after the main chapel closed (especially last weekend), and sometimes just as a worshiper in the pews. Our kids have also been involved. Suggesting that I wanted to shut it down in any way is ironic, since it is the opposite of what I wanted. But a continuing reminder throughout the outpouring, with its emphasis on God’s holiness and presence, is that it’s not about us but about God. And if God uses a hurried, overworked journalist to humble me some more, so be it; so long as God receives all the honor of which he is due!

Dr. Keener did his Ph.D. work in New Testament and Christian Origins at Duke University and is known for his work as a New Testament scholar on Bible background (commentaries on the New Testament in its early Jewish and Greco-Roman settings). Well over a million of his thirty-plus books are in circulation and have won thirteen national and international awards. 

His award-winning, popular-level IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (now in its second edition [2014], and available in a number of languages) has sold over half a million copies.

In Roosevelt Sweeps Nation: FDR’s 1936 Landslide and the Triumph of the Liberal Ideal, Pietrusza, provides a robust historical overview of this important, and often forgotten, presidential election that had far reaching implications upon politics and policy. Just as with his previous books, Roosevelt Sweeps Nation is a rich narrative that introduces the reader to a diverse cast of characters that shaped this crucial period in American politics. One of the strengths of Pietrusza’s writing is that his narrative tells a story that brings to life the individuals, issues, and events that shaped the 1936 campaign. 

The 1936 presidential campaign was a referendum on President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. Roosevelt had been elected in a landslide in 1932 defeating President Herbert Hoover. During the 1932 campaign Roosevelt promised the American people a New Deal, which was vaguely defined. As a result of the Great Depression, along with massive unemployment, the nation rejected President Hoover and placed the blame for the economic crisis on the Republican Party. 

President Roosevelt, as Pietrusza highlights, was a gifted politician and campaigner. Nevertheless, as his New Deal unfolded with its many “alphabet soup” programs and agencies during his first term it failed to bring about economic recovery. In fact, as Pietrusza wrote, any “recovery” was anemic at best with over 10.5 million still unemployed, numerous people still dependent upon relief, income levels still failing to recover, and many industries still not operating at full capacity. 

In addition to the New Deal’s anemic “recovery,” Roosevelt was confronted with growing political opposition from both the left and the right. This is one of the great highlights of Pietrusza’s book, because he reintroduces us to individuals that are often forgotten today but had an impact on our politics and policy. 

Roosevelt was a progressive Democrat, but he also started to see opposition from those on the political left who were even more radical. This included both socialists and communists. As an example, the muckraker Upton Sinclair was able to obtain the Democratic nomination for Governor in California and he ran on a radical socialist agenda. Pietrusza notes that even though Sinclair lost the election his popularity and agenda was enough to frighten both Democrats and Republicans. 

Others on the political left included Dr. Francis E. Townsend, who claimed to have supported Hoover in 1932, and was a critic of Roosevelt’s policies. Townsend proposed what became known as the Townsend Plan, a forerunner to Social Security, which called for a $200 a month pension to Americans sixty years of age or older. “Millions of desperate Americans flocked to ‘Townsend Clubs’ supporting his scheme,” wrote Pietrusza. 

Townsend was joined by another non-politician Father Charles Coughlin, whose sermons and later political and economic opinions were carried over the radio with his national program. Pietrusza described Father Coughlin who had “a flair for the dramatic, and a mellifluous delivery second only to Franklin Roosevelt’s.” Millions of Americans supported Father Coughlin’s National Union for Social Justice, which was a populist agenda that focused on economic issues such as monetary policy. An early supporter of Roosevelt, Father Coughlin soon turned into a harsh critic of the New Deal and used his radio program to advance his populist economic theories which were often critical of capitalism. 

As an example, Pietrusza, wrote that Father Coughlin advocated currency expansion, which was similar to the pro-silver agenda of William Jennings Bryan. The principles of the National Union for Social Justice reflected Father Coughlin’s radical views and he was also viewed as anti-Semitic and pro-fascist. 

Both Townsend and Coughlin were fierce critics of Roosevelt, but perhaps his greatest opponent on the political left was Senator Huey Long of Louisiana. The “Kingfish” dominated Louisiana politics and Roosevelt viewed him as one of two of the most dangerous men in America, the other being General Douglas MacArthur. Senator Long was a reluctant supporter of Roosevelt during the 1932 campaign, but he grew more impatient with the New Deal and Roosevelt’s seemingly noncommittal to support Long’s desires in terms of federal patronage. 

In response Senator Long in 1934 introduced his “Share-Our-Wealth” plan, which was a radical wealth redistribution scheme that would provide $5,000 to each household, which Pietrusza wrote, would be enough to purchase a home, an automobile, and a radio. He also proposed an old age pension plan. Senator Long’s charisma was a concern for Roosevelt, but his opposition to the New Deal came to an end when he was assassinated in 1935. 

Roosevelt’s critics from the political left were important because they forced his New Deal agenda to become more progressive. The passage of the Social Security Act was an example of Roosevelt moving his policy agenda further to the political left and creating the foundation for federal entitlement programs. 

The New Deal also brought concerns from Roosevelt’s fellow Democrats. Conservative Democrats and business owners were growing increasing concerned over the radical turn of the New Deal. Pietrusza quotes Roy Howard, who was a Scripps-Howard newspaper publisher, who warned Roosevelt that “many businessmen who once gave you sincere support are now, not merely hostile, they are frightened.” 

Democrats such as John W. Davis, who was the 1924 Democrat nominee for President, and former New York Governor and 1928 presidential nominee Al Smith became two of Roosevelt’s fiercest critics. These Democrats were concerned with Roosevelt’s “leftward, big-spending, big-deficit drift.” Both Davis and Smith would help in the formation of the American Liberty League, which also included members from corporate America. The American Liberty League opposed the New Deal and defended capitalism and constitutional limited government. 

Finally, Roosevelt was also opposed by Republicans. In the aftermath of the 1932 election the Republicans were looking not only for direction, but how to respond to the popularity of Roosevelt. Former President Herbert Hoover was considered the titular leader of the GOP and he officially broke his silence over the New Deal when he published his philosophical attack on the New Deal with The Challenge to Liberty. The Challenge to Liberty, published in 1934, was Hoover’s defense of what he called the “American System”, and he argued about the dangers of radical ideologies and philosophies that were undermining constitutional government and the rights of Americans. Republicans shared some of the similar concerns with members of the American Liberty League about the New Deal’s assault on capitalism and the Constitution. 

Both the American Liberty League and Republican opponents of the New Deal failed to resonate their message with the American people, but the United States Supreme Court, which had a strong conservative block declared several New Deal programs unconstitutional. This included Roosevelt’s flagship program of the New Deal, the NRA (National Recovery Act). 

Even with these critics from the left and the right Roosevelt had reason to be hopeful for his reelection. In the congressional midterm elections of 1934 Pietrusza noted that “for only the second instance since the Civil War, the party in power actually gained congressional seats.” Further, Pietrusza wrote that Republicans only “retained a mere seven governorships.” The Democrats had decimated the Republicans and only 128 remained in both houses of Congress, and most were progressive Republicans. 

The Republicans entering into the presidential campaign of 1937 did not have a clear frontrunner. President Hoover was still seen as “toxic” because of the Depression, and some considered him to be too conservative. Other possibilities included Senator William E. Borah, the “Lion of Idaho,” as a potential frontrunner. Borah was a progressive and an isolationist. Interestingly, other progressive Republicans who had previously supported former President Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose insurgency included the newspaper publisher Frank Knox and the Governor of Kansas, Alfred M. Landon.  Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan, who was one of the few, along with Landon, to survive the 1934 midterm elections, was seen as more conservative and a dark horse candidate. 

The Republicans would nominate Governor Landon, who was known as the “Kansas Coolidge,” for his fiscal conservative budget policies, but as Pietrusza mentions he did not like this nickname because he considered himself a progressive Republican. Frank Knox was selected as his running mate. 

One interesting story that Pietrusza tells from the Republican National Convention, which met in Cleveland, Ohio was the keynote address given by President Hoover. Hoover had not been an enthusiastic supporter of Landon and he preferred former Secretary of the Treasury Ogden Mills or even Senator Vandenburg. As Hoover addressed the delegates at the convention Pietrusza wrote that his speech “turned the hall into a screaming bedlam.” Further, Pietrusza wrote that the cheers for Hoover hit the maximum on the “demonstramoter,” which measured sound in the convention hall. The late Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger, who served as an usher at the convention, would write about Hoover’s enthusiastic speech in his memoir In the Arena. 

Pietrusza makes an interesting point that the Landon-Knox ticket was historic because it was a “quarter-century delayed victory for that old Rough Rider Theodore Roosevelt.” Both Landon and Knox had been supporters of the Bull Moose Party in 1912. During the campaign Landon was critical of the New Deal, but he also took a more moderate approach, which upset some Republicans such as Hoover. Hoover would later reflect that Landon “was necessarily unfamiliar with the witches’ cauldron in Europe and the fumes from it which were infecting the Roosevelt administration and spreading over the United States” in reference to the radical ideologies influencing the New Deal. 

In Philadelphia the Democrats met and renominated President Roosevelt. “Franklin Roosevelt could point with pride to a recovery that had clearly begun,” wrote Pietrusza. Nevertheless, Roosevelt had to balance his progressive New Deal reforms to try and weaken his more leftwing radical critics, while not scaring away some of the more centrist elements such as business owners. Roosevelt, Pietrusza wrote, campaigned as an optimist and that the glass was half-full. 

The nation was still fighting the Depression, but the New Deal was working to bring both relief and more economic stability to the economy. Pietrusza, just as with other historians, mentions Roosevelt’s charisma and that “he oozed charm and reassurance.” Americans had responded to Roosevelt’s ability to communicate, and his fireside chats and they connected with his optimism. Plus, as Pietrusza correctly pointed out, people identified with the progress being made by the various New Deal programs and they saw the physical evidence with the building of roads, bridges, post offices, among other projects. Roosevelt could also point to the passage of the Social Security Act as a positive reform. 

In his address to the Democratic National Convention, Roosevelt talked about defeating the “economic royalists,” and he argued that they “seek to hide behind the flag and Constitution.” Both the American Liberty League and Republicans made the Constitution an issue and charged that Roosevelt and his New Deal were usurping constitutional government. Roosevelt reassured Democrats and the nation that he would continue to pursue recovery and reform initiatives. Pietrusza mentions that Roosevelt “loved playing the underdog—and bashing the press—later famously whining that 85 percent of the papers were opposed to him,” which was an exaggeration. Nevertheless, Roosevelt and the Democrats were not completely certain that they would cruise to victory. 

Perhaps the most notorious part of the 1936 election was public opinion polling, especially the Literary Digest poll. Throughout the book Pietrusza highlights various public opinion polls and he even provides an overview of public opinion polling. The Literary Digest poll stands out because it predicted a Landon victory. In 1936, Literary Digest found that 62 percent of 1,907,68 poll respondents did not approve of Roosevelt and his New Deal policies. Further, Pietrusza noted that George Gallup warned that if Roosevelt lost three or four states such as New York or Michigan it “could spell FDR’s doom.” 

By October Literary Digest found that Landon was leading in thirty-two states and winning both the Electoral College and the popular vote. Pietrusza even notes that “reports had reached Washington of Landon pondering major cabinet appointments.” It was not just Literary Digest, but Pietrusza noted that other polls had predicted a Landon victory, while others such as Gallup and the Crossley and Roper surveys predicted that Roosevelt would be reelected. Even today public opinion polls, which are more scientific, are not always accurate as recent elections have demonstrated. 

The result of the 1936 election was a landslide victory for Roosevelt and the Democrats. Roosevelt won 27,747,636 (60.8 percent) votes to Landon’s 16,679,543 (36.5 percent). In the Electoral College, Roosevelt won 523 votes to Landon’s 8 votes. The only states to vote Republican were Maine and Vermont. Landon even lost his home state of Kansas. Hoover described the 1936 election results as leaving the “Republican Party thoroughly demoralized.” 

The Republican arguments that the New Deal failed to bring about recovery, was fiscally reckless, and threatening constitutionalism failed to resonate with the American people. Out of the election came not only a mandate for Roosevelt’s New Deal, but a strong political coalition. The New Deal coalition would exile the Republican Party into the political wilderness. The 1936 loss was especially hard on conservatives within the GOP and it would not be until 1964 that the Republicans would nominate a conservative candidate for president. Republicans would look to moderates such as Wendell Willkie, Thomas E. Dewey, and Dwight D. Eisenhower rather than conservatives such as Robert A. Taft. 

Pietrusza mentions that Roosevelt’s victory resulted in “remarkable results with certain economic strata, taking over 60 percent of the Northern-Protestant lower-income vote.” “The lower the income level, the greater his vote: 42 percent of upper-income voters; 60 percent middle-income; a whopping 76 percent of lower-income voters,” wrote Pietrusza. In addition, Roosevelt received 71 percent of the African American vote, which would become part of the New Deal coalition. Pietrusza does note that Southern Democrats started to pull away from Roosevelt. Even though Southern Democrats remained a part of the New Deal coalition the 1936 election results showed Roosevelt receiving less support in the South. 

President Roosevelt during his second term would continue his New Deal and he also used most of his political capital from the election to attack his greatest adversary the Supreme Court. Roosevelt’s Court Reform Plan or Court packing scheme would fail, but it would also result in the Supreme Court shifting and supporting New Deal legislation. Roosevelt would later appoint his own justices after the conservatives slowly retired, which resulted in what some constitutional scholars refer to as a constitutional revolution. 

Roosevelt’s victory in 1936 was a triumph for progressive liberalism and the liberal ideal. David Pietrusza’s account is a must read for anyone who wants to understand how this important election helped shape the government that we have today. 

Deconstruction: What is it and why is it important?

At the core of deconstruction is something quite simple:

“a method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary language which emphasizes the internal workings of language and conceptual systems, the relational quality of meaning, and the assumptions implicit in forms of expression.” (Oxford Languages)

This is pretty simple. First pick a subject. Then break it down into its components. Then find what drives it, what are its motivations. That will tell you its meaning.

That doesn’t seem to be a problem. In fact that sounds like a useful tool. And it is. It is, after all, used in every field as a diagnostic method for approaching problems and finding solutions.

This it begs the question: Why all the fuss?

The reason is this: The term should always be prefaced. There are types of deconstruction. Using the term without stating what type it is can leave the educated person wondering what is being talk about and the average person confused was to why such a useful tool might prove problematic. In other words, by being too general in our language we’re creating two problems. We’re telling both groups that we don’t really understand the issue. It can, and does, sound like we don’t know what we’re talking about.

If deconstruction is a useful tool, then has it been used in theology? Yes, it has. And its results are known to every evangelical. Back about 500 years ago, right after the Reformation, there was another movement called the Radical Reformation. In this movement was one very critical component. It was to move back to “what the Bible says” as a more primitive, a more Biblical theology. From this assumption we moved away from the liturgy of the Reformers and to the basics of (Ana)Baptist thinking: Call the individual to faith and baptize the adult on confession of faith. The teachings of the Bible were broken down to basic elements. Developed theology was, at least in part, rejected.

Later on, when the revivalists started, men like Wesley not only called individuals to salvation but left the church with this: Get people saved. That’s all there is to salvation. Salvation was reduced to the individual’s salvation. The covenant demands of the liturgical churches were rejected. What mattered was the individual.  This way of thinking continues today where the theme is merely to “get them saved” and then deal with the rest later as time allows.

This is still with us. Many para-church organizations have their student participants go do beach evangelism, lead someone to Christ, and then leave the flounder. Tract-based ministries lead people to decisions without commitments. The ticket is punched and that’s what matters most.

In all of these situations the doctrine of salvation was deconstructed to its most basic, core components. The rest that surrounds it is generally ignored. The Christian faith has been deconstructed and not always for the better.

The Origin Story

But … what’s going on today that’s so important?

The current movement has been around since the 1930s. There was a group in Frankfurt, Germany. These were philosophical Marxists. They differed from Marx in a number of ways. Their goal was to take Marxism as a philosophy and affect social structures. To do so they introduced a variation on deconstruction that views the components through the lens of Marxism. They reformulated “truth” and “reason” to become “authenticity” and “imagination” so that the new ideals could easily alter perceptions of reality.

Ok, that sounds strange. You heard an example of this during the 2020 campaign when then-candidate Biden said “we choose truth over facts.” By “truth” he didn’t mean accurate information (because if he did then he would have no reason to make such a statement). What he meant was that truth is the lens through which facts are assessed. This is how reimagines facts in the light of the truth.

What’s Happenin’!

Part of the work of these men in Frankfurt was to break down power structures. While Marx was about economic power and conflict, the Frankfurt Group went about tearing down more than just economic classes. They went after all forms of dominion. So just as Marx made some general comments about the family and how it should serve the state and the collective, these men took another tack, another direction to the same ends. A man named Foucault applied deconstruction to power structures.

Family is a power structure. The family has been deconstructed to power-submission structures that are to be eliminated. What are these structures? Patriarchy is about power. Motherhood is about power. Fathers should have little or no say over wife and children. Mothers have been reduced to birthers. Parents would have no say in the public education of the children. This is the popular language of today. You can read it almost daily. These statements follow the theme.

Race relations and historic social structures are power structures. Economic class is a power structure. You’ve heard of that notorious “1%” gang. To be white is to inherit the guilt of abusive white people even if they’re not your ancestors. Just because you’re white. To be a person of color is to be a permanent victim, not a person with free will and opportunity. (Critical Race Theory, aka CRT, is merely the application of this method of criticism to questions of race and it’s the only one where the purveyors of the movement were honest enough to use the term “Critical Theory” and thus reveal its origins.) To operate a store is to be exploitive and greedy, so that theft must be encouraged by the state. These things, too, are happening daily and you can hear about them like clockwork.

These critical theorists did not ignore religious power structures. When a pastor speaks of “white guilt” or uses language that is consistent with it, he is compromising. When a church says women may be pastors, elders, or deacons, they’ve broken down the power structure to something small-d democratic and would allow anyone in based on skill set, not according to the typology of Ephesians 5 or the instruction of I Timothy 3. These are compromises of truth in light of today’s movements. It’s not just an alternative interpretation.

All of these things share the same theme. In technical terms it’s “neo-Marxist deconstruction” (also known as “Critical Theory”) from the Frankfurt school. But unfortunately, most people will get lost when you make such a precise statement. But at least you’ve got one here.

This is a thought patters which is inconsistent with Christian theology. The mission of the church is not to be a change agent intended on diminishing power structures. The Kingdom of God is a power structure built on His character and person. There is nothing higher or better. There is no other justice.

Cross-post.

Last month Joe Rigney, who is John Piper’s successor as the new president of Bethlehem College and Seminary, tweeted the quote above in the midst of the ongoing confirmation hearings of Joe Biden’s nominee to the US Supreme Court, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

What prompted Rigney’s tweet was a series of questions that were asked to Judge Jackson about her basic, definitional understanding of human dignity and personhood. Judge Jackson’s responses were not encouraging. She not only refused to answer when she believed equal protection under the law attaches to a human person, which obviously implicates her beliefs about abortion and the unborn, but she also obfuscated to the point of absurdity when she was asked a direct question about the definition of the word “woman.”

By now, this remarkable exchange has become infamous:

Senator Blackburn: “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?”
Justice Jackson: “I can’t.”
Senator Blackburn: “You can’t?”
Justice Jackson: “Not in this context. I’m not a biologist.”

Many wish that Senator Blackburn would have followed up with the question, “Are you a woman?” And then, if she answered yes, which she almost certainly would have — especially since Joe Biden [not a biologist] had promised to nominate a “black woman” to the Court — she Blackburn should have asked, “How do you, a non-biologist, know you are a woman?”

Of course, Judge Jackson’s confusing and intentionally muddled answers probably do not represent what she actually believes. But what her answers do represent is the disorienting cultural climate we live in — a climate where the very basic definitions of man, woman, and person have become completely untethered from reality and are increasingly politically charged. Which brings us back to Rigney’s statement:
“Anthropology is the defining issue of the 21st century.”

This is what we believe at the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). Whereas past generations of Christians faced other battles over orthodoxy, such as the Trinity, or Christology, or even Ecclessiology, today, the mettle of truth and orthodoxy are being tested the most in the realm of anthropology. This is not to say that other doctrines are not important — they are of extreme importance to the continuance of biblical fidelity and orthodoxy. But it is to recognize that orthodoxy and its confessors are threatened with capitulation today not only from the world, but also from within our ranks at exactly the issue of anthropology — including what it means to be created male and female in the image of God.

And that is why we do what we do at CBMW; it is why we renamed our journal in 2019 to Eikon: A Journal for Biblical Anthropology. We are aiming to equip this generation and future generations with biblical answers to contemporary questions about marriage, men and women, and even what it means to be a human person — about biblical anthropology.

We may not be biologists, but we do know what a woman is. Because God made us male and female for a purpose, and his Word is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path.

If you are building a wall, check to be sure the wall is normal (straight) with a plumb line. That’s a string with a lead weight on it that always points to the center of the earth and is perpendicular to the surface. If the wall deviates to the right or to the left it is unstable. It is easily knocked down and will bring down whatever is attached to it.

The most famous abnormal building is the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Built on an unstable foundation, it began to lean very early, and huge expense has been incurred through the centuries to keep it from falling over. At present, 800 tons of lead bricks on one side of the building serve as a counterweight. We can keep piling on lead bricks, but the building will fall apart someday because of the abnormal stresses on the masonry.

The tower is a great tourist attraction, but not useful as a building—you can’t put furniture on the slanting floors.

Something as abnormal as that tower can be sustained, but it requires constant application of force. Take away the lead bricks, and the natural law of gravity brings the structure down.

In society, norms may be based on how the majority of people behave. Some variation is “normal.” Customs and fashions change, but basic facts of biology and human nature will reassert themselves if outside pressures to conform to unnatural behavior are removed—unless too much damage has been done.

It is not normal to wear a face mask and stay six feet away from other human beings. As soon as the pressure is removed, the students, even at a Woke university, are maskless and interacting normally—talking, laughing, hugging. Their natural immune systems are functioning normally.

It is not normal to stay locked indoors. Without police coercion, people will go out when they think it essential or safe.

It is not normal to worry constantly about a virus that in most people is no worse than the flu. Once the daily case counts and death statistics stop, people may believe their eyes and ears telling them that most people are ok. Unless they have been turned into obsessive-compulsive germophobes.

It is not normal for people to bully or exclude or malign family members and friends who choose not to take a novel experimental injection. That takes constant propaganda portraying them as lifelong lepers. But once the mortar of human relations is weakened, will the masonry crumble?

It is not normal for public health officials to have dictatorial powers to wreck normal human activities, for years after an apparent emergency ends. It is not normal for officials, academics, medical societies, and doctors to suppress information about preventive measures (such as vitamin D and betadine or hydrogen peroxide mouthwash) or early out-patient treatment with repurposed drugs long approved as safe. It is not normal to deny care to unvaccinated patients. It is not normal to cover up adverse effects of new treatments. Censorship and extraordinary repression are required, at least until terrified people get used to their constrained lives and lose their will to resist.

The attempt to establish a new normal and smash the old goes far beyond the pandemic measures. It is a biologic fact that there are two sexes, and that one male and one female gamete (sperm and egg) are needed to make a new human being. It is normal for men and women to be attracted to each other and to long for a stable union. It is normal for parents, children, and biological relatives to love and be loyal to each other. Infidelity and betrayal are tragedies in world literature and common motives for murder. 

But imperfect as these societal structures are, there is one normal and there are many abnormals. If not two natural sexes, there is a constantly multiplying number of humanly constructed genders. If not one man/one woman marriage, there are many variable relationships of atomized individuals. 

If we throw away our plumb line, and try to normalize what is unprecedented or until recently thought deviant, what will happen to our structure? The experts think they can redo our psyches and even reengineer our DNA. We are being subjected to a massive, uncontrolled, nonconsented experiment. Past societies may have had dictatorship by a self-appointed health priesthood or pervasive homosexuality, transgenderism, and promiscuity. Where are they now?

If we let the experts prevail, will we have a brave new happy transhuman utopia? Or a pile of rubble?

The past year for the Biden administration, putting it mildly, has been challenging. Biden has seen his approval rating dwindle. By any objective standard, his pullout from Afghanistan was disastrous. He made promises about COVID-19 that he could not possibly keep. Yet, despite the fact he did not win the White House by much, and Democrats have a razor-thin majority in the House and Senate, he has attempted to govern as though Americans gave him a mandate.

Americans did no such thing. 

The president approached this speech as the great uniter, a hat he wore during his 2020 campaign. The problem is that one has to ignore the past year to believe it. 

He also did not deliver a unifying speech. He could have and should have, but it was a missed opportunity, and one has to wonder if the staff he surrounded himself with are even capable of doing that.

He started his address on a solid note. I believe he hit the right tone in regards to Ukraine.

One can argue about what the Biden administration did leading up to the Russian invasion in Ukraine, but I can’t find fault in the action taken now to put pressure on Russia. 

He discussed the impacts of the sanctions on the Russian economy and the devaluing of the Russian ruble. He announced plans to go after Russian oligarchs. He shared the assistance being provided to Ukraine. Biden also announced the U.S. would close its airspace to Russian flights.

He followed up by reassuring Americans who are war-weary that the United States would not commit troops to Ukraine but would defend NATO allies should the need arise.

Then his address went south.

He explained that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would cost Americans, primarily at the pump. 

Instead of announcing that he would reverse some of his earlier decisions, like shutting down the Keystone XL pipeline, he said he would release 30 million gallons from our strategic oil reserves. 

Really?

His speech tanked further when discussing his domestic agenda by pushing the same agenda – “social infrastructure” spending, abortion rights, LGBTQ rights, complaining about Republican’s 2017 tax cuts, and gun control – that he failed to accomplish during his first year because he did not have a mandate. 

How is that unifying? 

There were some bright spots. Biden called for securing our southern border and reforming our immigration system. There is bipartisan consensus on this issue, but, unfortunately, both parties listen to the extreme elements within their parties, so nothing is done.

He finally challenged the “defund the police” advocates within his party, stating we need to fund the police to address rising crime rates.

Biden then ended on a solid note by promoting his “unity agenda” and agenda that most people could rally around even if there are disagreements on how to accomplish it.

His agenda consists of:

• Addressing the opioid epidemic
• Taking on mental health
• Supporting our veterans
• Ending cancer as we know it

I can get behind that agenda even if I can’t support every idea to accomplish that.

Biden missed an opportunity to backtrack on the divisive agenda. Instead, he could have focused on Ukraine, bipartisan immigration reforms and border security, lowering the crime rate, and his unity agenda. 

But he didn’t, and following a year of demonizing those who are unvaccinated and pursuing a far-left agenda without a mandate, he needed to do just that.

After a strident introduction by Vice-President Kamala Harris, who, incredibly, compared the riot to the attack on Pearl Harbor and 9-11, Biden claimed that “For the first time in our history, a president had not just lost an election, he tried to prevent  the peaceful transfer of power as a violent mob breached the Capitol.  He also said President Trump “ rallied the mob to attack”.  These claims suggest that the Capitol Riot was implemented by President Trump.  There is zero evidence to support this outlandish lie.  

President Trump had a legal strategy, based on the constitution and federal voting laws, to challenge the certification of the election in several states based on legitimate concerns about voting fraud.  In order for that strategy to work, it was necessary to have peace and order at the Capitol. Any violent invasion at the Capitol, whether precipitated by pro or anti-Trump forces (or by anti-Trump forces manipulating pro-Trumpers), would hamper that effort.  The effort to challenge the election essentially collapsed as Congressional representatives withdrew from challenging the election and the time for meeting was truncated.   The pro-Trump representatives had planned on 12 hours of presenting their case for election fraud in both the House and Senate.  This was completely sabotaged by the riot. 

As previously noted in a prior article for this website, not only did Trump never advocate for violence during his January 6^th speech, he only called for “[a] walk down to the Capitol . . .  to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women.”

In that prior article, I noted that, in order to participate in the initial attack on the Capitol police, any rioters would have had to leave the Ellipse somewhere between 5 minutes before Trump’s speech began to only eight minutes into the speech.  This was based on a travel time of 32 to 45 minutes from the Ellipse to across the street from the Capitol.  The 45 minute estimate is based on the report of Raheem Kassam, who made that journey on January 6^th. The 32 minute estimate is based on a Bing search estimate for such travel on a day after the Capitol Riots,^, when Washington D.C. was not packed.  In recent special programming on the riots, on Real America’s Voice, a woman heading a film crew indicated that it took her 55 minutes to walk from the Capitol to the Ellipse in an attempt to hear Trump’s speech.  So, it would appear that, based on reported travel times that day, the rioters would have had to leave the Ellipse prior to Trump beginning his speech.  

The prior article also noted that the rioters possessed a mass of equipment, i.e. riot helmets, climbing gear etc., which they could not have obtained that day, unless there is a “Riots R Us” store located between the Ellipse and the Capitol.  It also noted evidence of prior government knowledge of a planned riot.  

Biden claimed that Trump “created and spread a web of lies about the 2020 election.”  “Even before the first ballot was cast, the former president was preemptively so in doubt about the election results. He built his lie over months, wasn’t based on any facts.”

Trump’s concern was well founded in light of how easy mail in and absentee balloting can be used to commit voter fraud.  This was established by the bipartisan Carter Baker Commission on Federal Election in 2005.  Absentee voting is not allowed for citizens in 35 of 47 European countries.  Ten other countries, including England and France allow it only if the voter requests the absentee ballot in person and presents an ID.  England ended mail-in absentee voting after 40000 fraudulent ballots were used to elect Labor councilmen to the Birmingham City Council in 2004.

France ended all absentee voting in 1975 after hundreds of thousands of dead people were found to have voted in Corsica.  

Time Magazine published an article about an anti-Trump “conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes . . . an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans.”  The goals included compelling social media to censor “disinformation” and convincing the public of the false narrative that “mail-in votes weren’t susceptible to fraud.”  

The article mentioned the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.  Mollie Hemingway, senior editor at the Federalist did an analysis of how $350 million in “Zuckerbucks” was spent.  Part of that money transformed government election authorities into get out the vote machines for Democratic locales.  In Georgia, counties that received Zuckerbucks “moved an average of 2.3 percentage points Democratic” compared to virtually no movement for counties not receiving the bucks.  In Wisconsin, “the five cities that received Zuckerbucks outsourced much of their election operation to private liberal groups. An out of state Democratic activist, Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein, took over so much of Green Bay’s election operations from Clerk Kris Teske, the official charged with running the election, that she took family leave before the election and ultimately “quit  in frustration”.

If such conspiracies, involving the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars, are now admitted, is Trump’s pre-election suspicion of voter fraud a “lie”?   

Despite Biden feverishly claiming that voter fraud is a lie, it is still an open question.   

A sampling of the many studies indicating voter fraud impacted the 2020 election is available here.   

There is an ongoing investigation of voter fraud in Wisconsin by a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice.  

In Georgia, an investigation by True the Vote, using ballot drop box videos and cell phone data, has shown that 242 people were involved in illegal ballot harvesting, emptying back packs full of ballots into the drop boxes, often in the dead of night.  One informant revealed that he was paid $45000 for delivering 4500 ballots in the 2020 election and the later Senate runoff.  He believes that this was the average pay off for those delivering the ballots.  This would represent the expenditure of $10,890,000 for the delivery of 1,089,000 ballots.  The state of Georgia is now investigating True the Vote’s detailed complaint.  While True The Vote doesn’t know if the ballots were themselves fraudulent, does anyone believe that over $10 million was spent for the illegal delivery of legitimate ballots? True the Vote is conducting similar investigations in Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. 

Biden spoke out of both sides of his mouth claiming that audits were “partisan” but bragging that audit counts of all votes, legal and illegal, still resulted in wins for him.  Somehow, he forgot to mention that the Maricopa County, Arizona audit not only showed a win for Biden but also that there were 50000 questionable ballots, a number far in excess of his victory margin of 10457 votes.  

Biden also lied by stating, “Right now in state after state, new laws are being written not to protect the vote, but to deny it. Not only to suppress the vote, but to subvert it. Not to strengthen and protect our democracy, but because the former president lost.”.  

For reasons previously stated, new legislation is being passed to safeguard against fraud perpetrated through absentee and mail-in voting.  The nonsensical opposition to voter ID requirements is best demonstrated by Democrat Stacey Abrams.  She and other Democrats stauchly opposed voter ID laws, such as are found in 46 of 47 European countries.  Such laws are supported by 80% of Americans.  After repeatedly claiming that ID laws are “racist”, Abrams said that she never opposed such laws once she realized that she might garner Sen. Joe Manchin’s support for the Democrats’ radical voting law revisions.  

Biden falsely stated, “the third big lie being told by a former president and his supporters is that the mob who sought to impose their will through violence are the nation’s true patriots.”  There is not a shred of evidence to support this claim.  On January 7, 2021, Trump condemned “the infiltration of the Capitol” and stated, those “engaged in the acts of violence and destruction . . .  do not represent our country.”  Even those Republicans, who condemn the treatment of the capitol rioters, have also rejected their acts of violence and have never suggested these acts made them patriots.   

Finally, Biden stated, “Some have already made the ultimate sacrifice in this sacred effort. Jill and I have mourned police officers in this Capital rotunda, not once, but twice in the wake of January sixth. Once to honor officer Brian Sicknick who lost his life the day after the attack. And the second time to honor officer Billy Evans, who lost his life defending this Capital as well. ”

This statement falsely suggests that Brian Sicknick’s and Billy Evan’s deaths were related to defending the Capitol on January 6^th.  Brian Sicknick died of natural causes.  Billy Evans was killed by a Farrakhan supporter in April 2021.  The only death known to be caused by violence at the Capitol on January 6th was Ashli Babbit, an unarmed female protester shot by a Capitol police officer. 

Perhaps, while researching the Bible on truth, Biden would have benefited by finding:  “the Lord hates . . . a false witness who breathes out lies. . . .”  Proverbs 6:16; 6:19. 

The Apostle Paul expressed that amazing truth in his epistle to Timothy. That verse encapsulates why we celebrate Christmas. Just think about the phrase, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.”

How remarkable is that? This verse contains two primary truths:

Christ came to us.

When you look at different religions around the world they all have one thing in common. Human beings attempt to reach the divine through their works. Human beings take the initiative.

Not so with Christianity. God initiates. He comes to us. God becomes man.

We read in the Gospel of John: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth,” (John 1:14, ESV).

The Apostle Paul explains just how incredible this was.

“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men,” (Philippians 2:5-7, ESV).

God the son came into the world not as a conquering king, but as a baby. A baby born of a virgin, teenage mother. A son of a carpenter who will grow up in Nazareth, a town that no one respected.

This is hardly the context we would expect the King of the Universe to come to us, but yet he came. Fully God and fully man who experienced pain, suffering, hunger, temptation, exhaustion, agony, and all the while was without sin.

And few fully recognized who it was in their midst.

“The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him,” (John 1:9-11, ESV).

He was not accepted on this earth as the king that he was, but that was by design.

Christ came with a purpose in mind.

Christ came to save sinners.

Jesus did not come for perfect people.

The Apostle Paul explained to Timothy the state he was in before Christ came.

“I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that is in Christ Jesus,” (1 Timothy 1:12-14, ESV).

Paul who then was called Saul, hated Christians. Hated the name of Jesus. He persecuted the Church, (Acts 8:1-3) and was present for the first Christian martyr, Stephen, who was stoned to death, (Acts 7:58).

He did this until he had an encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, (Acts 9). He was transformed. Saul became Paul who instead of persecuting the church instead brought the Gospel to the gentile world.

Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners.

Of whom, Paul said, he was the worst, (1 Timothy 1:15).

And not just Paul, but you and I as well.

“But to all who did not receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God,” (John 1:12-13, ESV).

God took the initiative yet again because it was not in our nature to receive or believe. We could not come to him on our own initiative. We all sinned, (Romans 3:23) and God can not tolerate sin. We are all imperfect and God expects perfection. We could never meet God’s standards.

God had to act. Jesus humbled himself by becoming a human being and coming in the form of a servant, but did so much more. “And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross,” (Philippians 2:8, ESV).

Jesus, God the son, was born to die.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him,” (John 3:16-17, ESV).

Jesus didn’t wait for us to be worthy before he died for us.

“For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person – though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die – but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us,” (Romans 5:6-8, ESV).

And he didn’t stay dead. Jesus rose again conquering sin and death. Because he rose from the dead we can have confidence that we too will rise from the dead.

“For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once and for all, but the life he lives he lives to God,” (Romans 6:7-10, ESV).

Sin could not defeat Jesus and the grave could not hold him.

And we can be saved from our sin as a result.

How will you respond?

Those of us who received and know Jesus, our response is worship. Like the Apostle Paul who spontaneously offered praise as he wrote to Timothy, “To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen,” (1 Timothy 1:17, ESV).

Some reading this have never considered the true purpose of the Christ child come on Christmas morning. God loves you. He sent his Son Jesus to die for you. He wants a relationship with you. He has given you the best gift imaginable which is eternal life through his Son Jesus Christ, (Romans 6:23).

To receive that free gift we are to repent – turn from your sin and turn to Christ, and believe. Believe that Jesus Christ died for your sin and rose from the grave.

The Bible offers this promise: “(I)f you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, ‘Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame,'” (Romans 10:9-10, ESV).

If you turn to Christ, He is the best Christmas present you will ever receive. It’s the very reason we celebrate Christmas.

So, in honor of this year’s Twitter rant, here are the best grievances shared by Sen. Paul: 

As fiscal conservatives, we can hope that there is not as much wasteful spending to highlight next year. But, realistically, there will always be problems in government to highlight. Tune in on Festivus 2022 to find out which ones Sen. Paul finds worth tweeting about, and in the meantime, read the full report his office puts out every year detailing wasteful spending. 

My heart was racing as I traveled to the hospital not knowing what happened with my parents other than knowing they were in an accident, but fearing the worst.

My worst fears were partially realized when an ER physician gave me the worst news of my life, a drunk driver took the life of my mother, Linda Vander Hart. My parents were driving to my sister’s house to console her and her children after her ex-husband and father of her children, James Bartels, was killed in a car accident just hours before.

My parents waiting at a stoplight at the intersection of E. Euclid and E. 33rd St. on the east side of Des Moines as they headed toward Altoona were rear ended by this selfish, selfish man who, we were told by the police, was driving approximately 70 mph. My mom was killed instantly and my dad, Dan Vander Hart, suffered a broken jaw, but worse, lost his bride of 49 years.

After one year and we are still waiting for justice. Her killer’s trial has been delayed twice, the second time it was pushed to April 18, 2022.

I miss her and not a day goes by when I don’t think about her. The grief I’ve experienced over the past year has been a process.

C.S. Lewis, in A Grief Observed, wrote, “Grief is like a long valley, a winding valley where any bend may reveal a totally new landscape.”

I think that is an appropriate description. You can’t rush it, it takes on different forms and phases, and all you can you can do is journey along the path through it. Deep sadness, depression, disbelief, anger, I’ve experienced it all while also taking time to celebrate her life.

But the grief I experience today is not the grief I experienced a year ago.

In all of this God is faithful.

Scripture tells us, “The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases; his mercies never come to an end,” (Lamentations‬ ‭3:22‬, ‭ESV‬‬).

I never doubted and I can testify that this is true.

It is also true that “Weeping may tarry for the night, but joy comes with the morning,” (Psalm‬ ‭30:5b,‬ ‭ESV‬‬).

Grief will fade and joy will return.

I can rejoice that my mom is in the presence of the Lord and I will one day see her again. I also am thankful that Jesus at the cross defeated death so we can have eternal life. And one day we will experience grief no more.

As a Christ-follower, I can and do have the hope of the resurrection and the truth that Jesus “will wipe away every tear from (our) eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away,” (Revelation‬ ‭21:4‬, ‭ESV‬‬).

It’s time for the political histrionics to stop. Multiple studies have shown that the consequences far outweigh any potential (and illusory) benefits of masks, lockdowns, and school closures. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director admitted that the current Covid-19 mRNA vaccines, while helpful in reducing deaths and hospitalizations, do not stop transmission of the virus. “Breakthrough” cases in vaccinated persons are on the rise. Moreover, the current vaccines likely are not effective for the new, likely less lethal Omicron variant. Public health experts opine that the SARS-CoV-2 virus (that causes Covid-19) and its multiple variants are becoming endemic. That means SARS-CoV-2 and its infinite number of variants will not be eliminated, but become a manageable part of the human-viral ecosystem. 

Sadly, our government is not responding in accordance with the scientific facts. Instead, federal and some local governments are mandating more vaccines, culminating in proof of vaccination to engage in society and continue living as a normal human being. This is not science. This is nascent totalitarianism.

Two lines from the 1990 Cold War era spy film, The Hunt for Red October foreshadowed our government’s warp speed trajectory to authoritarianism. “Privacy is not of major concern in the Soviet Union, comrade. It’s often contrary to the collective good.” And a White House official casually boasted, “I’m a politician that means I’m a cheat and a liar.” 

It didn’t take long for President Biden to tell the big lie. As president-elect, Mr. Biden said there would be no vaccine mandates. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (the third in line for the presidency) brilliantly illustrated the intersection of lying and privacy. As late as August 2021, Speaker Pelosi said, “We cannot require someone to be vaccinated. That’s just not what we can do. It is a matter of privacy to know who is or who isn’t.”

Without skipping a beat, the executive branch issued three separate vaccine mandates: all federal contractors (including remote workers), an Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) requirement for businesses with more than 100 employees, and a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) requirement for employees, volunteers and third-party contractors of health care providers certified by CMS.

The judicial branch is fighting back against the President’s attempt to jettison the Constitution’s separation of powers clauses, a large chunk of the Bill of Rights, and Supreme Court precedents on bodily autonomy with these mandates. On November 9^th, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals put the OSHA mandate on hold. The Court reasoned that the mandate “threatens to substantially burden the liberty interests of reluctant individual recipients put to a choice between their job(s) and their jab(s).” And “the loss of constitutional freedoms ‘for even minimal periods of time … unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”

Citing the lack of congressional authorization and harm to access to medical care, on November 29^th a Missouri federal district court placed a temporary halt on the CMS health care workers “boundary-pushing” mandate. The government planned to enforce the mandate by imposing monetary penalties, denial of payment and termination from the Medicare and Medicaid program. The ruling covers providers in Kansas, Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming. 

On November 30^th, a Louisiana federal district court blocked the CMS mandate issuing a nationwide injunction in a lawsuit brought by 14 states (Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia). “If the executive branch is allowed to usurp the power of the legislative branch to make laws, two of the three powers conferred by our Constitution would be in the same hands. … [C]ivil liberties face grave risks when governments proclaim indefinite states of emergency.”

That same day, a Kentucky federal district court issued a hold on the federal government contractors mandate, citing lack of authority of the executive branch—“even for a good cause”. The court reasoned that if a procurement statute could be used to mandate vaccination, it “could be used to enact virtually any measure at the president’s whim under the guise of economy and efficiency.” The ruling covers Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee.

The mainstream media finally reported on the toxicity and poor results of Dr. Fauci’s “standard of care” treatment, remdesivir. This prompted families to use the courts rather than watch their relatives needlessly die. Victories for patients are growing. A Chicago area judge recently ordered a hospital to “step aside” and allow a physician to administer ivermectin in an effort to save a dying patient. It worked.

People are tired of lies. When Google employees are signing a “manifesto” to fight the mandates, you know the seeds of revolt have sprouted.

A Digital Third Coast survey found that 68 percent of respondents felt anxious about the news during the pandemic. Between 65 percent and 67 percent of respondents felt overwhelmed by the news, respectively. 54 percent of respondents even stated that they were cutting down on news consumption to avoid these feelings.

Many people feel anxious about their loved ones and worry about the economy. While it is understandable to keep up with the latest health information, excessive news consumption can lead to stress. To maintain your mental health, you must strike a healthy balance between being informed and reading every article in your newsfeed.

Your Health and the News

Most media outlets report on stories that will shock or draw viewers and readers, due to the sensational nature of the 24-hour news cycle. Exposition to negative or stressful news leads to hormone liberation, such as cortisol. And recurrent stress exposure can harm our mental and physical health.

Negative news can cause symptoms such as headaches, fatigue, depression, anxiety, and difficulty sleeping. The National Center of Biotechnology Information found that watching television news for just 14 minutes led to an increase in the development of anxiety and sadness. 

Managing Your News Consumption

Moderation is the key to your mental and physical well-being. These are some tips to limit your news consumption and manage headline stress.

Set time limits

You can set aside time each morning to check your newsfeed, or read the news. Give yourself a time limit if you feel overwhelmed by the constant stream of headlines. After your time is up, turn off your smartphone and spend time with friends and family so you can relax and find balance in your life.

You can create a routine that will allow you to keep up with the most important news without going down rabbit holes on news sites. To limit the number of headlines that you see throughout the day, you might also want to change your notifications in your news apps so that you have to seek news out instead of being notified about it.

Keep it simple

It can be tempting to read as much news as you would like, doing this you may end up reading unreliable information. Reading social media often causes more frustration, as you will undoubtedly read the comments. Trusted sources such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) can help you gather the information you need to protect yourself and your family. You can then move on to your day once you have this information. If you already have the most important information, there is no reason to read and stress yourself out.

Get Rid of Anxiety-Provoking News

Your social media feed can sometimes be a great source of information, but it can also cause more anxiety and stress. Consider unfollowing people who bombard your social media feed with offensive content, sharing disturbing links, or posting offensive information. To muffle certain words and phrases, you can adjust your settings across social media platforms and news curation apps.

Lay Off News Before Bed 

Catching up on the news before bed might seem like a good idea, but it can leave you riddled with anxiety. You’ll lay awake in bed thinking of the number of Covid-19 cases in your town, or worrying about the war in a far-off place. Your body may also be affected by the blue light from your electronic device screens. Avoid the news at least one hour before bed to protect your sleep. You might turn off notifications and put your phone on “Do Not Disturb” while you sleep.

Find Good News

Although it might seem that everything is negative these days, there are still positive and uplifting stories being shared by outlets. You can check out social media accounts such as Some Good News. You might start a text chain with family and friends to share positive stories you find. This can offset some of the more troubling news on your regular news sites.

Do Something for Yourself

You may feel anxious or uncertain about your future after reading about the pandemic. You can avoid becoming overwhelmed by these thoughts and spiraling into despair by immediately engaging in a positive activity. Take a walk, call someone, meditate, pray, or tune in to a TV show. You can do something to distract from the pandemic. These healthy distractions will help you stay present at the moment.

If you feel anxious or stressed more often than is normal, contact your primary care provider.

I also had a close relative lost to history named John Sherman who in 1862 was an anonymous farm boy from St. Ansgar, Iowa who answered President Lincoln’s call for troops to put down the rebellious south. John was part of the “Hornets’ Nest” that suffered greatly at the Battle of Shiloh, Pittsburgh Landing in Tennessee. Many historians say the Minnesota and Iowa farm boys of that fight turned the two-day battle for the Union forces and most of them paid with their lives. My ancestor John survived Shiloh and continued on with his service to the Union, ultimately being captured near Meridian, Mississippi.

John died in Andersonville prison in Georgia before General Sherman was able to liberate it sacrificing his life for the cause of freedom for all people. His bones lie in Georgian soil never to return to the black dirt of Iowa. That is the price our family paid to keep the Union whole and set the slaves free. It was worth it, and John is a hero to our family.

Imagine my surprise when one hundred and sixty odd years later this Sherman drove through the south from Iowa to Florida for a little R and R only to discover the confederate flag known as the Stars and Bars of the defeated rebellious south flying proudly from flagpoles in Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida. The first one made me chuckle as it was obviously some backwoods simpleton. However, by the third, fourth and more rebel flags flying spread over many states I realized it was no fluke of a redneck douche bag, it was much more.

I will admit I have not been a fan of the “Kneeling” movement for our national anthem. I’ve been upset by it even, as I feel it is disrespectful of our united flag (Old Glory) that flies over all races of Americans proud and true. Troops who have served since the Civil War days have enjoyed a brotherhood that transcends black and white skin hues, and they are united in the red, white, and the blue.

However, since discovering that many in the south are still flying the rebel flag, I am even more disturbed by that than by any kneeling football player.

I grew up with the “Dukes of Hazard” and a rebel flag painted on the roof of the “General Lee”. It was harmless and fun. I had no idea the truth behind it or what it represented. As I grew and learned the true history such as the fact that my ancestor lay dead in southern soil to defeat that very flag and eliminate the plague upon America that was slavery. Under the banner of the “Stars and Bars” millions of human beings were treated as animals and enslaved and finally 750,000 souls were killed in the war to rid our nation of the disgusting practice of slavery and stay united as one nation, and yet it remains flying upon modern day flag poles in the south.

How has this happened? In our overly woke world, how has the symbol of southern slavery remained? How must it make every black person who sees it feel? I can tell you how it pissed it made this white northerner feel! How would a Jew feel to drive by a Nazi flag flying high and proud in Germany for all to see? Almost everyone would be disgusted by the Nazi flag so why are we winking at the confederate flag? Forget worrying about kneeling for the anthem if we still have the confederate flag flying in the south. I literally saw it fly within a few miles of the Tennessee Titans stadium. It was within shouting distance of the Atlanta Falcons field and an especially large one was flying not far from the Dolphins turf. How is this allowed?

Sorry. Not sorry. The old South that is what the rebel flag stands for will never rise again. Time to put the stars and bars away in the museums of history. Modern southerners flying it is embarrassing and disgusting. Or maybe that’s just the Sherman in me.

Forget Kneeling for the Anthem…Stop Flying the Rebel Flag!

God saves sinners.

He writes:

“God saves sinners—and the force of this confession may not be weakened by disrupting the unity of the work of the Trinity, or by dividing the achievement of salvation between God and man and making the decisive part man’s own, or by soft-pedaling the sinner’s inability so as to allow him to share the praise of his salvation with his Saviour. This is the one point of Calvinistic soteriology which the ‘five points’ are concerned to establish and Arminianism in all its forms to deny: namely, that sinners do not save themselves in any sense at all, but that salvation, first and last, whole and entire, past, present and future, is of the Lord, to whom be glory for ever; amen.”

This is really the point of the doctrines of grace. I will add, that my brothers and sisters in Christ who embrace Arminianism would object they are trying to deny the truth that God saves sinners. I think most embrace that particular soteriology not because they don’t believe that God saves sinners. If they didn’t believe God saves sinners then their disagreement is with scripture, not John Calvin. 

They get hung up on the idea of election or definite atonement (also called limited atonement, but I’m not a fan of that term). 

I believe in these doctrines, not because of John Calvin, I believe them because they are biblical truth no matter how hard they are to understand or how it doesn’t mesh with our skewed view of what is fair. 

No one entering heaven would be fair because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. We don’t measure up, not even close, there is nothing absolutely nothing we can do to balance the ledger. Without Christ we are spiritually dead, slaves to sin, and quite literally enemies of God. 

But, thankfully, God saves sinners. 

Dead sinners can’t make themselves to be live saints. Hearts that are stone can’t will themselves to become flesh. 

We can’t transform ourselves, but praise Jesus, God saves sinners.

The whole point of the doctrines of grace is not to be spiritually proud, quite them opposite. I’m humbled because God saves sinners. 

It makes me think of the lyrics of Amazing Grace written by John Newton (who, by the way, believed in the doctrines of grace).

Amazing grace
How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me
I once was lost, but now I'm found
Was blind, but now I see

There’s not a thing I did myself. God saved. God found. God restored my sight. Looking at the second and third verses:

'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear
And grace my fears relieved
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believed

My chains are gone
I've been set free
My God, my Savior has ransomed me
And like a flood, His mercy rains
Unending love, Amazing grace

God takes the initiative. Jesus has ransomed us. He put death to death. He extends His grace. He transforms. He leads. He opens our eyes to we can understand the truth. He gives us grace so we can believe.

God saves sinners. What fabulous news!

On November 2, 1865, Warren Gamaliel Harding was born in Blooming Grove, Ohio. Harding, a conservative in a Republican Party that also had a progressive wing, served in the United States Senate before winning the presidency. He supported President William Howard Taft in the Republican civil war of 1912 that split the GOP when progressives bolted to join former President Theodore Roosevelt in the Bull Moose Party. 

In the 1920 presidential election, Harding campaigned on a “return to normalcy,” which translated into an abandonment of the progressive domestic and foreign policies associated with President Woodrow Wilson and a return toward constitutional limited government. He also campaigned on the slogan of “America First.” 

Harding, just as with President William McKinley, ran a “front porch” campaign and thousands of people visited his home. At his home, Harding would give speeches and great visitors. Al Jolson even wrote a performed a song, “Harding You’re the Man for Us,” at the Harding home. Harding won the election in a landslide. 

Once in office, Harding rejected the imperial presidency of Wilson and selected several notable leaders including Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, Herbert Hoover, Secretary of Commerce, and Charles Evans Hughes, as Secretary of State. 

President Harding’s first major challenge was to pull the nation’s economy out of depression at the end of World War I. The “forgotten depression” of 1920-1921 the nation faced 11.7 percent unemployment and much economic uncertainty. In the process the national debt had escalated because of the war, tax rates were extremely high, and government spending was out of control. 

The solution that Harding utilized was to restore the economy by stimulating the private sector by reducing regulations and slashing tax rates. The historian Paul Johnson in Modern Times wrote that the short-lived depression was the “last time a major industrial power treated a recession by classic laissez-faire methods…”

As President, Harding believed and advocated for economy in government. Harding called for reduced spending, tax reduction, and paying down the national debt. Reform was brought to the federal budget process with the Budget and Accounting Act. Although the federal government has increased dramatically in size in comparison to Harding’s time in office, he still had to say no to demands to increase spending. 

Harding, along with Treasury Secretary Mellon, advocated for a conservative fiscal policy. This included reducing both spending and tax rates. As a result, “federal spending was cut from $6.3 billion in 1920 to $5 billion in 1921 and $3.2 billion in 1922. Federal taxes fell from $6.6 billion in 1920 to $5.5 billion in 1921 and $4 billion in 1922,” noted Jim Powell, Senior Fellow with the Cato Institute. Harding also started to chisel away at the national debt. 

Harding also appointed probusiness individuals to regulatory agencies and he nominated conservatives to the Supreme Court. Some of President Harding’s Court appointments included Chief Justice William Howard Taft and Justice George Sutherland, both of whom are considered judicial conservatives. Harding also advocated a policy of civil rights and civil liberties for African Americans. 

He also pushed for and achieved limiting immigration through reform, and he addressed the importance of Americanization and citizenship. In terms of foreign policy, Harding took a more nationalist approach. It is often assumed that Harding was an isolationist, but this is untrue. Harding and Secretary of State Hughes led the Washington Naval Conference, which led to disarmament in the aftermath of WWI. 

Harding also placed the interests of America first in terms of trade by supporting the protective tariff. Harding believed that a tariff would benefit and protect American industry, agriculture, and labor. “I believe in the protective tariff policy and know we will be calling for its saving Americanism again,” stated President Harding. The Fordney-McCumber tariff was passed as a result. 

The Harding economic program, which was continued by President Calvin Coolidge after his death, was responsible for creating the roaring economy of the 1920s. Coolidge would continue to reduce spending, tax rates, and pay down the national debt. 

President Harding deserves reconsideration just as historians have given President Ulysses S. Grant, whose administration was also marked by scandal. Scandals did occur in Harding’s administration, but he was not personally connected. 

Many of the policy challenges that the nation is being confronted today could be solved by following the principles and polices of President Harding. Harding’s conservative nationalism is an example for today’s policymakers. 

President Harding, just as with President Donald Trump, believed in America First and American exceptionalism. As Harding said, we are forever devoted “to safeguard America first, to stabilize America first, to prosper America first, to think of America first, to exalt America first, and to live for and revere America first.”  

Prior to this Luther struggled with his standing before God.

Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God, and said, “As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the decalogue, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!” Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience. Nevertheless, I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted.

 (Luther’s Works, Volume 34, pgs. 336-337)

In his studies in Romans, he had an awakening while reading Romans 1:17, “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith,'” (ESV).

Luther explained his experience.

For a long time, I went astray [in the monastery] and didn’t know what I was about. To be sure, I knew something, but I didn’t know what it was until I came to the text in Romans 1 [:17], ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’ That text helped me. There I saw what righteousness Paul was talking about.82 Earlier in the text I read ‘righteousness.’ I related the abstract [‘righteousness’] with the concrete [‘the righteous One’] and became sure of my cause. I learned to distinguish between the righteousness of the law and the righteousness of the gospel. I lacked nothing before this except that I made no distinction between the law and the gospel. I regarded both as the same thing and held that there was no difference between Christ and Moses except the times in which they lived and their degrees of perfection. But when I discovered the proper distinction—namely, that the law is one thing and the gospel is another—I made myself free.”

(Luther’s Works, Volume 54, pg. 442)

Luther described what this awakening did for his faith:

At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, “In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’ ” There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.” Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me. Thereupon I ran through the Scriptures from memory. I also found in other terms an analogy, as, the work of God, that is, what God does in us, the power of God, with which he makes us strong, the wisdom of God, with which he makes us wise, the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God. 

(Luther’s Works, Volume 34, pg. 336-337)

We are justified, and Luther realized, not by our good works, but by faith.

That was true before Luther, it was true when he had his awakening, it is true now, and it will be true on the last day.

Also, we have additional theological insights by the Reformers that are important to our faith today that are summarized in five Latin phrases we call the Five Solas.

Luther and the Reformers rediscovered the Gospel.

Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone)

The scripture alone is our authoritative guide for faith and practice. It, not the Pope or the Church, is our highest authority. The Bible is infallible in what it teaches and inerrant in the original languages.

This belief led to the translation of the Bible into the vernacular so that anyone who was literate could read it, not just those who could read Latin.

All sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments are the inspired Word of God.  The apostle Paul affirms this when he says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” (2 Timothy 3:16, ESV).

Every word, of every page of Scriptures, is inspired by God.  The apostle Paul in his first letter to the Church at Corinth proclaimed that the wisdom that he was imparting was not of human origin, but rather a wisdom that was “taught by the Spirit,” (1 Corinthians 2:13). God inspired men by the Holy Spirit to write the scriptures for in 2 Peter we see:

…knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.  For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit, (2 Peter 1:20-21, ESV).

Sola Fide (Faith Alone) and Sola Gratia (Grace Alone)

We are saved through faith in Jesus alone, and by God’s grace alone.

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast, (Ephesians 2:8-9, ESV).

As Luther discovered there is nothing we can do to merit salvation. Our salvation is based on Christ’s merit through His work on the Cross.

“(I)f you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved,” (Romans 10:9-10, ESV).

Solus Christus (Christ Alone)

God the Father sent His Son Jesus Christ as a revelation of Himself. He is supreme and is the Head of the Church.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all of the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross, (Colossians 1:15-20, ESV).

The ultimate purpose for His life and ministry on earth was to provide a sacrifice for the sin of mankind, (Hebrews 10:1-10).  Christ was able to be the supreme sacrifice because even though He was tempted, (Matthew 4:1-11) He lived a sinless life, (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15).  Through His vicarious and atoning death upon the cross, Jesus took on all the sin of mankind: past, present, and future and satisfied the penalty of sin with God the Father, (1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 2:2).  No better sacrifice could be offered that what Jesus offered in His own body, as we see in Hebrews:

For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.  Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world.  But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, (Hebrews 9:24-26, ESV).

After His death, Christ was buried and on the third day He bodily arose from the dead, (Luke 24:3; John 20:20; 1 Corinthians 15:4).  The resurrection of Jesus Christ confirms the truth of His words, (Matthew 28:6), and that He is the Son of God, (Romans 1:4).  Forty days after His resurrection, Christ ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father where He is our Great High Priest, Advocate, and Intercessor preparing a place for believers, (Acts 1:9-11; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20-23; Hebrews 7:25; 8:1; 9:24).  He will one day return personally and visibly to the earth, (John 14:3; Acts 1:9-11; 1 Thessalonians 4:16).  He will not come in the form of a servant then, but rather as King.

Soli Deo Gloria (To the glory of God alone)

God alone is deserving of all glory. The whole reason we are saved is to give Him glory because He is worthy.

The Shema recorded in Deuteronomy 6:4, says, “Hear O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one,” (ESV).  This statement made the nation of Israel distinct.  The neighbors of the children of Israel, God’s chosen people of the Old Covenant, worshiped numerous gods.  They were to worship one God, not the idols and false gods that they worshiped.  The Church is to worship one God as well, for God is one, (1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 1:17).  He is worthy of our worship!

Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen, (Jude 24-25, ESV).

Our goal is to give God glory. The Westminister Catechism ends with this truth, “The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.”

“So, whatever you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God,” (1 Corinthians 10:31, ESV).

Conclusion:

Our culture, like at the time of Martin Luther, is shifting sand and it needs the Gospel of Jesus Christ more than ever. The Reformers rediscovered the Gospel, and we must keep it the center of our churches, our families, our worship, and our lives.

There’s trouble a-brewin’ in churches today. Yes, there’s division. Some of the division is good and is needed to provide some doctrinal house-cleaning. We’ve invited all sorts of heresies into church life these days and many of them are extreme, irreconcilable errors. Pantheism and its sibling panentheism (God is everything and God is in everything) have been found acceptable, along with a variety of sins that the God specifically condemns. Over 200 years ago the otherwise-respected preacher Jonathan Edwards adopted a panentheism and today Stephen Furtick has done the same.  (And they say we’re intolerant!)

There are other errors coming in as well. To be certain they are not new errors. All of my life there has been a problem with how to engage civic issues. (I’ll minimize use of the term “political” because it conjures up the idea of party affiliation and preference. Party is not the point.) Some (notably Anabaptists) have tried to stay completely apart. Others have attempted to work out some sort of accommodation to civic questions and solutions and the options available are many and varied.

This is about evangelicals. Liberals have been doing this for decades. It’s nothing new for them. Evangelicals did it more before the 20th century but took a hiatus for most of the past century. There was a major theological shift that contributed greatly to this, but that’s another lesson.

The things that are happening in the church are multi-faceted. Some teachers/pastors have opted to adapt either the specific framework of certain neo-Marxists or, at a minimum, adopt the epistemology at play. That is, some have gone full CRT with its overt Marxist teachings while others are attempting to reconcile certain components of CRT (and adjacent questions) with Christian teaching. The results have been less than spectacular.

In The Atlantic is an article by Peter Wehner on division among evangelicals. “The Evangelical Church Is Breaking Apart” attempts to describe this shift. His first example is David Platt, followed by Russell Moore and Beth Moore. With these personalities the author describes their plight in terms of lies, manipulation, and abuse in order to bring a more conservative civic framework into church life.

After laying out his case regarding these personalities in the first section, he begins the second section with this statement:

How is it that evangelical Christianity has become, for too many of its adherents, a civil religion?

I can’t think of a more disingenuous remark. Yes, there are incidents of over-politicizing church life. I was saddened when the late E. V. Hill hosted Al Gore in 2000 and in 2020 Mike Pence was hosted in a flag-waving church service. (Not all evangelical compromises have been in favor of conservatives.) There is a difference between addressing civic issues versus the promotion of candidates.

The pro-life movement was and is about an issue. The voter guides common distributed in churches have, by and large, been careful to address the issue and draw a relationship to candidates without ever saying “Vote for ‘B’” as that would be a potential 501c3 violation. (The ACLU still opposes even this generic language.)

Likewise the question of race is an issue. But the concern in church discussions today, despite the author’s statements, is about the Marxist framing of the issue. Instead of dealing with the real question he goes with this syllogism:

Let’s say Person “A” commits an error. And let’s say that error is on a matter of socio-political concern. Now let’s say Person “B” takes note of the error and proposes changes that would seek to mitigate the error. The question is: Which party is being “political” in its behavior.

The author’s conclusion is that the leaders who are being criticized are just trying to be faithful on matters of race while the critics are politicizing the issue.  I think that’s called a straw man, no matter how eloquent the writing style or prestige of the publication.

He does get one thing right in quoting Alan Jacobs: “Culture catechizes.” It does affect our sensibilities toward each other. Cable news and social media are having a significant impact on how people thing. But after spending most of piece going after the conservative voices in church life he draws the equivocation that it happens to both the right and the left. If that is so, why spend so much time demonizing the right for its opposition to current theological errors? Why spend zero time dealing the past several decades that have corrupted what was once an idealistic liberalism and turned it into a cynical political agent?

He also returns to the old canard about Constantine. I’m sorry, but those days are gone. He does bring up (via Du Mez) “Christian nationalism” and clearly doesn’t understand what is happening in church life. He would rather engage in a caricature than deal with any evangelical theologian who might explain things better.

It’s a wonder he didn’t bring up the Third Reich.  But he does to half-way with an accusation of racism by raising the cited accusation of the “southernization of the Church” where the demons are “masculinity and male dominance, tribal loyalties, obedience and intolerance, and even the ideology of white supremacism” coupled with the assertion that “Southern culture has had a profound impact upon religion, particularly evangelical religion.”

So, he builds on this and interprets current events through a political lens.

The key issues in these conflicts are not doctrinal, Fryling told me, but political. They include the passions stirred up by the Trump presidency, the legitimacy of the 2020 election, and the January 6 insurrection; the murder of George Floyd, the Black Lives Matter movement, and critical race theory; and matters related to the pandemic, such as masking, vaccinations, and restrictions on in-person worship. I know of at least one large church in eastern Washington State, where I grew up, that has split over the refusal of some of its members to wear masks.

“There have always been mean people who cloak their unkindness in religious devotion,” one minister in a conservative denomination told me. “The New Testament itself is pretty clear about that.” But, he added, the conflicts have grown more widespread and more intense.  “Without doubt you’ll see—you already are—a ton of pastors quitting,” he said. ”Most pastors actually hate conflict. So if you’re going to pay me one-quarter of what I could make on the market, why put up with this?”

Note that the author deals only with surface issues. He does not, whether he can or not I do not know, deal with questions of doctrinal integrity or worldview.

Then, again, he does in a backhanded way. It is pressure like this that is placed on evangelicals to treat things like either overt Marxism or the less-visible Marxist epistemology as secondary, lower-shelf items. They are nothing of the sort. Marxism always corrupts the doctrine of salvation by making certain claims on human nature and sin. A Marxist epistemology may not make such statements directly but always makes the demand that issues be framed in that manner, according to conflict and class. That’s not James, that’s not Philemon, that’s not Galatians. That’s not Christian.

When you commit to a political framework for everything you analyze then that’s all you’re going to be able to communicate to people. As Christians we know that a proper worldview is through the lens of the Bible, not the lens of politics and class divisions. This article can serve as a working example of how a Marxist epistemology corrupts doctrine, for it does the same thing to thought in general. Whether the hard thought life of the confessed Marxist of the softer analytical method of cultural Marxist is employed one ends up with corruption of doctrine and teaching.

It is this pressure which is dividing evangelicalism. While new age cults creep in and may be easily identified by their mysticism, questions of epistemology and framework are less visible to “the average person in the pew.” We’re getting our catechism from the emasculated character of Free Guy, from cable news, from popular entertainment, from social media, and more. At the same time we are treating church education as unnecessary activity, or one that, because it isn’t what it needs to be, should probably be set aside. Fixing it might be a better idea. Just my opinion.

Historical frameworks are useful to see where we are at. For the past several decades, really the past three centuries, we’ve eliminated in-person corporate prayer, catechetical instruction, and so much that the church in the U.S. is but a shadow of its former self. It took a couple centuries for the individualism of democracy and individualism to infect the church. Modernity as expressed in “I think therefor I am” later became a covenant-free salvation message that often excluded the church. Today we follow culture by roughly two to three decades. The feminism of the 50s & 60s became the theological feminism of the 80s and 90s. The sexual revolution of the “gay 90s” became the tolerance for sodomy of the 2020s. The theological Marxism of the 70s (eg Cone, et al) is now bearing its fruit with a theological influence that seemed difficult to predict. But it’s here in a variety of forms. And the theology of many has been corrupted.

I did find it odd that the author would rail against people, especially elders, holding pastors and teachers accountable. I wonder what he thinks about the Roman Catholic system not holding priests accountable for their abuses. It seems a position that cannot be held with consistency. Accountability of pastors to both denominational and local church leaders is critical. Pastors are not above legitimate and properly-handled criticism.

Articles like this spend their time repeating talking points over and over again. In a year you’ll read the same thoughts in different words in another publication. Same song, next verse. And on and on it goes.

The challenge is to ask pastors to deal with questions of race apart from a Marxist frame of reference. Again, James, Galatians, and Philemon cover the core issue of class and church behavior and they do so without introducing a foreign set of principles into our theology.

The whole of this nation is a hotbox for Marxist indoctrination. What’s left for the church is to cease its compromises.

Cross-post.

Philosophically suave readers hear “Superman” and think less DC Comics and more Frederich Nietzsche. Nietzsche believed that a godless universe calls for independent strongmen (and strong-women) that will chart their own course. Beware the voices of the majority if you want to be Superman; be ready to say what needs to be said and do what needs to be done.  Over 100 years since Nietzsche, various candidates for such attitudes and behavior mark the who’s who of who not to be—Adolph Hitler topping the list. And yet, one cannot easily dismiss Nietzche’s insight; we will seek a Superman in heaven, but if “God is dead,” then we’re left with our comics or fellow humans on the earth.

Enter our second songwriter, Jon Guerra. Guerra penned “Citizens,” in 2020. It’s one part poem, one part lament. In a provocative stanza, Guerra writes:

Killed by a common consensus
Everyone screaming “Barabbas”
Trading their God for a hero
Forfeiting Heaven for Rome

Guerra interprets one of the more disturbing scenes at the close of the Christian gospels. Why would the 1st century Jerusalem crowd ask for Barabbas, the insurrectionist, over Jesus of Nazareth, the possible Christ? Guerra knows. We want a hero. At least Barabbas did something. At least Barabbas threw a punch against the wrong party ruling our lives right now. If Jesus is going to just keep silent and die, to hell with him. We’ll take Barabbas.

America wants a hero. You want a hero. I want a hero. The question remains, “What sort of hero do you need?” 

Guerra hints at better answers in his closing two stanzas:

Is there a way to love always?
Living in enemy hallways
Don’t know my foes from my friends and
Don’t know my friends anymore

Power has several prizes
Handcuffs can come in all sizes
Love has a million disguises
But winning is simply not one

It’s hard to win at all costs and take the way of love. I guess that’s why without the eyes of faith Jesus is the epic loser. He lost; he lost big time…so too, His martyrs, peacemakers, mourners and those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. Stephen failed to persuade the mob, and died in a pile of stones. The Apostle Paul lost his head; he didn’t win any election. I can hear a modern strongman finding epithets for such men: “Loser. Moron. Idiot.” 

The more I look at America, and the Christians who happen to live there (though their primary citizenship is in heaven, cf. Philippians 3:20), the more I wonder what kind of hero they seek and follow. I suspect the way of love might not impact the ballot box at all. I suspect civility will be less click-bait than hate. Christians might actually suffer, take it on the chin, and not experience any redemption until the Lion-Lamb returns. And remember, Jesus’ distinction between sheep and the goats has nothing to do with votes, popularity, or earthly success. It’s in little acts of love, to forgettable people, in settings that won’t be taped by a CNN or Fox News crew (cf. Matthew 25:31-46).

Up where the mountains meet the heavens above
Out where the lightning splits the sea
I could swear that there’s someone somewhere watching me
Through the wind and the chill and the rain
And the storm and the flood
I can feel his approach like a fire in my blood.

Bonnie Tyler got something right, but I don’t think she knew who was coming and the kind of people He plans to receive.

I confess I’ve not read well in quite some time. I still read a lot, but typically blog posts and articles, and sometimes books (mostly nonfiction). My love of writing sprung from a love of reading, and that love needs to be rekindled. Unfortunately, with its many benefits and bringing libraries of information to our fingertips, the internet has not been kind in that regard. 

It is a cultural problem. One of my chief complaints about the Common Core State Standards (that were essentially accepted everywhere, rebranded, and brought to a K-12 classroom near you) was its focus on informational text at the expense of classical literature.

The decline of the art of reading started long before that, however, and I see it in myself.

“The decline of reading has impoverished our culture and individual lives. We have lost mental sharpness, verbal skills, and the ability to think and imagine. Our leisure has little meaning, and we’re consumed with self. We fail to recognize beauty or the value of either the past or essential human experience. We suffer from a lack of edification and a shrunken vision,” Ryken and Mathes write.

Consider how much time we spend on social media, the endless scroll, clickbait headlines, memes, and funny videos. Now, social media has positive elements certainly. I know it has helped me build a platform, reconnect with high school friends, keep in touch with family out-of-town, engage with ideas different than my own, and more.

But it is also such a huge time suck, and there is also the temptation to become consumed with self. (All one has to do is take a look at the average Instagram feed.)

I can attest that my attention span is not what it used to be. Not reading well has impacted my creativity. I used to write poetry, something that I have not done in years. 

I know we would all be better off if we would spend less time on social media and more time reading literature. I know I would. 

I’m challenging myself and you to do just that.

The objective of the “Make in America to Sell in America Act” is to “revitalize American manufacturing while securing critical supply chains and to end the “dangerous overreliance on foreign factories to help ensure a supply crisis never happens again.” The pandemic demonstrates just how dependent the nation has become not just on China, but also other nations for necessities such as medicines and medical supplies. Whether it is manufacturing, mining, or energy it is time to place the interests of the United States first. 

President Joe Biden’s “supply chain crisis is getting worse with every passing day, straining the finances of working Americans who have already been forced to endure so much over the past year and a half. Biden’s policies have given us empty shelves and rising prices across the country. It’s past time for the U.S. to end its crippling dependency on foreign manufacturing in countries like China and ensure that we actually produce the goods we need here at home,” stated Senator Hawley. 

The United States has become dangerously dependent on foreign nations, even potentially hostile nations such as China, for essential goods. “Thanks to its mercantilism and heavy subsidies, Beijing has long succeeded in gutting key U.S. industries — including pharmaceuticals, electronics, and solar equipment,” wrote Michael Stumo, who serves as CEO for the Coalition for a Prosperous America.

This even includes materials related to our national security and defense. One example is the shortage of semiconductors. “Why are semiconductors so important? Because computer chips are the “brains” of not just computers, cars, and medical devices, but also the weapons systems that support America’s military. Being so dependent on imported computer chips leaves America’s national security vulnerable to the whims of the global market,” wrote Stumo.

Senator Hawley’s legislation would help end this dependency by requiring more of these necessities to be manufactured in the United States. China, which recently tested a hypersonic missile, is building up its military, and threatening Taiwan, is not a nation that the United States should be dependent upon. Even domestic goods from China can be questionable in terms of their safety and other hazards. 

The United States is still running large trade deficits. The trade deficit in August was a record $73.3 billion. Since 2001 the nation “has rung up over $12 trillion dollars in accumulated global deficits.” China’s exports to the United States have risen 31 percent since 2018. It is estimated that 3.7 million American jobs alone were lost to China between 2001 and 2018. This does not include manufacturing that was lost to other countries. 

“Is not the case now conclusive that we made a historic mistake when we outsourced our economic independence to rely for vital necessities upon nations that have never had America’s best interests at heart,” asked columnist Patrick J. Buchanan? 

Defenders of free trade agreements and globalization argue that the benefits outweigh the loss of manufacturing jobs. The main benefit being consumers can purchase cheaper goods. However, the loss of manufacturing has led to not only lost jobs, but lower wages, greater dependence on social welfare programs, and the economic decline of many communities. 

“International trade has largely failed America over the past three decades,” wrote former United States Trade Representative Ambassador  Robert Lighthizer in The Economist. President Donald Trump was the first to address this failed policy by renegotiating trade agreements and placing tariffs on steel and aluminum. President Trump also stood up to China’s predatory trade practices and levied tariffs on China.

The United States cannot continue to depend on foreign countries for necessities, especially when they impact national security and health. Senator Hawley is correct that the nation needs “trade policies that put American workers first, that prioritize them over cheap goods from abroad, that encourage the real production of real things here, and not just arbitrage schemes by the great corporations.”

Senator Hawley is a conservative who is fighting to place the interests of America first.

I needed a break. As many of you are aware, I launched The Iowa Torch almost one year ago, moving the Iowa political coverage we used to publish here, over there. Caffeinated Thoughts shifted to provide commentary on culture, current events, faith, and politics. 

So for the past year, my writing focus has been news articles. However, my schedule has also changed in the past year, considerably impacting the amount of time to write. So I have to budget the time I have well. 

I was also feeling burnt out. I want the writing I do here to be thoughtful and challenging. That is hard to do when you feel burnt out.

I needed a break, so I took one. I apologize for not warning you. During this time, I considered whether or not I should continue Caffeinated Thoughts. 

The answer is yes. I do want to see this platform continue, so I’m publishing at Caffeinated Thoughts again. Today there will be a piece from John Hendrickson that follows this update. Tomorrow, I have a piece scheduled that I hope you enjoy and find challenging.

I want to be realistic. My goal is to publish 3 to 5 articles weekly, and I don’t mean from just me. I’m always looking for contributors. The more contributors we have, the more articles I can publish. So if you want to write about politics, culture, and faith from a conservative Christian point of view and can write well, drop me a line at shane@caffeinatedthoughts.com. I can’t pay you, but I can offer you a platform. 

I was the Dean of Students at South Haven Christian School near Portage, IN.  I had only been working there for three weeks.  We were into our first period class, I was teaching a high school guys’ Bible class when a co-worker came into the classroom to tell me what had happened.  We were confused to be sure.

When we learned that the second tower was hit and then the Pentagon was also hit we were pretty sure that we had been attacked.  We called all of the students together to pray.  We heard at that time there was another plane still in the air that had likely been hijacked.  We prayed for our nation, for the families of those who perished, for those who had been injured.  We prayed for the first responders.  We prayed for God to protect those still in harm’s way.  We prayed for that plane still in the air which we later learned was Flight 93 which crashed as the passengers tried to take back control of the plane from the terrorists.

Many students cried, many were shell shocked, and all of us horrified at such a  disregard for human life.  Following it though I remember the pride I felt in my country through the sacrifice of the first responders, and how average citizens risked their lives to help others in need.  I remember the generosity that was poured out in resources and time.  I also remember the collective grief that was felt throughout the nation and much of the world.  I also remember how we came together in that grief with resolve to overcome this dark moment in our history.

Let’s never forget.  Never forget the sacrifice.  Never forget the struggle that continues.  Never forget the troops who have given much including their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Also, let’s not forget it is ultimately God who has kept us safe.  He is our Protector and Shield.  He is our Refuge and Fortress as the Psalmist writes:

He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High
will abide in the shadow of the Almighty.
I will say to the Lord, “My refuge and my fortress,
my God, in whom I trust.”

For he will deliver you from the snare of the fowler
and from the deadly pestilence.
He will cover you with his pinions,
and under his wings you will find refuge;
his faithfulness is a shield and buckler.
You will not fear the terror of the night,
nor the arrow that flies by day,
nor the pestilence that stalks in darkness,
nor the destruction that wastes at noonday.

A thousand may fall at your side,
ten thousand at your right hand,
but it will not come near you.
You will only look with your eyes
and see the recompense of the wicked.

Because you have made the Lord your dwelling place—
the Most High, who is my refuge—
no evil shall be allowed to befall you,
no plague come near your tent.

For he will command his angels concerning you
to guard you in all your ways.
On their hands they will bear you up,
lest you strike your foot against a stone.
You will tread on the lion and the adder;
the young lion and the serpent you will trample underfoot.

“Because he holds fast to me in love, I will deliver him;
I will protect him, because he knows my name.
When he calls to me, I will answer him;
I will be with him in trouble;
I will rescue him and honor him.
With long life I will satisfy him
and show him my salvation,” (Psalm 91:1-16, ESV).

These prayers are theologically rich and read like poetry, and as I read them I make them a prayer of my own as I confess to God my utter dependence upon Him.

The following prayer is entitled “The Gospel Way,” It offers a guide for us as we praise God for His salvation and pray that the Gospel will permeate every aspect of our lives.

BLESSED LORD JESUS,
No human mind could conceive or invent the gospel,
Acting in eternal grace, thou art both its messenger and its message,
lived out on earth through infinite compassion,
applying thy life to insult, injury, death,
that I might be redeemed, ransomed, freed.

Blessed be thou, O Father, for contriving this way,
Eternal thanks to thee, O Lamb of God, for opening this way,
Praise everlasting to thee, O Holy Spirit,
for applying this way to my heart.

Glorious Trinity, impress the gospel on my soul,
until its virtue diffuses every faculty;
Let it be heard, acknowledged, professed, felt.
Teach me to secure this mighty blessing;
Help me to give up every darling lust,
to submit heart and life to its command,
to have it in my will,
controlling my affections,
moulding my understanding;
to adhere strictly to the rules of true religion,
not departing from them in any instance,
nor for any advantage in order to escape evil,
inconvenience or danger.

Take me to the cross to seek glory from its infamy;
Strip me of every pleasing pretence of righteousness by my own doings.
O gracious Redeemer,
I have neglected thee too long,
often crucified thee,
crucified thee afresh by my impenitence,
put thee to open shame.

I thank thee for the patience that has borne with me so long,
and for the grace that now makes me willing to be thine.
O unite me to thyself with inseparable bonds,
that nothing may ever draw me back from thee, my Lord, my Saviour.

Calvin Coolidge is most often remembered for his dry wit, silence, and conservative economic and foreign policies, but he is not often remembered as a friend of labor. Coolidge himself was an example of the Protestant work ethic, who viewed work as honorable. As Coolidge stated:

I cannot think of anything that represents the American people as a whole so adequately as honest work. We perform different tasks, but the spirit is the same. We are proud of work and ashamed of idleness. With us there is no task which is menial, no service which is degrading. All work is ennobling and all workers are ennobled.

Coolidge acknowledge the importance of Labor Day when he stated that “this high tribute is paid in recognition of the worth and dignity of the men and women who toil.”  In addition he argued that he could not “think of any American man or woman preeminent in the history of the nation who did not reach their place through toil.” Coolidge’s family upbringing built into him the understanding of hard work, thrift, and the dignity of work. He also built the value of work into his own family as demonstrated by his son Calvin Coolidge, Jr., who worked in the tobacco fields while his Father was President. When other boys were astonished to see the son of a President working in the tobacco fields, one of the boys remarked to Calvin Jr., that “‘if the president was my father, I wouldn’t be working here,’” and Calvin Jr., replied “‘you would, if your father were my father.’”

Even before Coolidge assumed the presidency in the aftermath of death of President Warren G. Harding, the late economic historian Robert Sobel wrote that “probably no Governor in the nation had more experience with strikes than had Coolidge in 1919, and he was considered pro-labor.” As Governor of Massachusetts Coolidge won national recognition for his handling of the Boston Police Strike, when he intervened and famously stated that “there is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, anytime.”

When Harding and Coolidge won the presidential election of 1920, the administration faced a tremendous crisis in labor with the depression of 1920-1921. This depression was severe as business and industry suffered and unemployment “reached 11.7 percent, some months within that year witnessed even higher unemployment — possible as much as 15 percent.”  Although the depression of 1920-1921 was severe, it was cut short because of the economic policies initiated by the Harding administration. These policies consisted of tax reductions, spending reductions, paying down the national debt, and tariff reform. 

As President, Calvin Coolidge would continue these policies, which created a period of economic expansion and prosperity. The “Roaring Twenties” or “Coolidge Prosperity” created a period of economic expansion during the decade. “The seven years from the autumn of 1922 to the autumn of 1929 were arguably the brightest period in the economic history of the United States,” wrote economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway. 

The Coolidge Prosperity was not just benefiting business leaders, but common laborers as well. Robert H. Ferrell, a historian and Coolidge biographer, wrote:

One reason that workers did not enroll in unions was that they were doing much better in the 1920s. Real wages for industrial workers were 8 percent above the base year (1914= 100) in 1921, 13 percent above in 1922, and 19 percent above in 1923. For the next two years, the figure remained at this level and then increased, reaching 32 percent in 1928. The workweek declined from 47.4 hours in 1920 to 44.2 in 1929. This meant a five-and-a-half-day week…All the while unemployment was a low 3.7 percent between 1923 and 1929. This compared with 6.1 between 1911 and 1917, a fairly prosperous time for workers.

Garland S. Tucker, III, in The High Tide of American Conservatism: Davis, Coolidge, and the 1924 Election, wrote that “economic facts indicate that prosperity was indeed more widespread — and more widely distributed — than at any time in American history up to this point.” “Millions of Americans for the first time acquired a home, a car, and labor-saving appliances — many of the middle-class advantages that had hitherto been beyond their reach,” wrote Tucker. As a result of the Coolidge Prosperity “millions of Americans entered the middle class and attained a measure of economic security they had not known before.”

Coolidge’s political and moral philosophy, along with his patriotism, formed his conservative worldview. He understood that having a successful economy and decent wages depended on following fiscal prudence. It also meant following a spirit of Americanism as he stated:

We do not need to import any foreign economic ideas or any foreign government. We had better stick to the American brand of government, the American brand of equality, and the American brand of wages. America had better stay American.

Coolidge, just as with past Republican administrations notably those of McKinley and Harding, argued that American wages were far better than those of Europe’s and that American wages should be protected. Coolidge argued that three policies helped in protecting the rise in American wages. These included “restrictive immigration,” a “tariff for protection,” and “economy of expenditure.” Coolidge argued that “these are some of the policies which I believe we should support, in order that our country may not fail in the character of the men and women which it produces.” Coolidge understood that if business was supported and encouraged by sound public policies it would “provide profitable employment.” Coolidge also argued that he did “not want to see any of the people cringing suppliants for the favor of the Government, when they should be masters of their own destiny.” 

Coolidge proclaimed that “one of the outstanding features of the present day is that American wage earners are living better than at any other time in our history.” During the 1924 presidential campaign one of the Coolidge-Dawes campaign slogans was the “Full-Dinner Pail,” which symbolized the prosperity of the Coolidge policies. Coolidge valued American labor and the spirit of work, and his policies led to job creation and economic expansion. Coolidge was truly a pro-labor President. 

Hamilton, who served as Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington, was instrumental for establishing the modern system of American capitalism. Hamilton, a leading member of the Federalists, was an influential adviser to President George Washington and an influence on Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall. 

Hamilton was considered the “chief architect of the Washington administration’s policies.” Forrest McDonald,  who was a leading historian of the American Founding and biographer of Hamilton, argued that “Hamilton’s fiscal system, which breathed life into the Constitution, was an example of conservatism — of constructive, prudential change — at its best.” Hamilton’s policies which consisted of paying down Revolutionary War debts, establishing the first Bank of the United States, and establishing a system of tariffs. Hamilton’s economic program placed the nation onto a path of a sound economy. His policies were later continued and advocated by the Whig Party under the leadership of Henry Clay of Kentucky and Daniel Webster of Massachusetts. Both Clay and Webster pushed the American System, which was a system of economic nationalism and reflected the Hamiltonian economic goals of economic development. 

As Treasury Secretary, Hamilton also delivered a number of reports to Congress, most notably his Report on Manufactures. Hamilton, a veteran of the American Revolutionary War and who helped lead the victory at the Battle of Yorktown, understood the need not only for a strong economy and financial system, but the nation could not be dependent upon foreign nations. “Hamilton’s report would become our blueprint of economic independence,” wrote Patrick J. Buchanan. 

Coolidge wrote that Hamilton “desired his country to be self-sustaining and self-sufficient.” “Conservative statesman from Alexander Hamilton to Ronald Reagan sometimes supported protectionism and at other times they leaned toward lowering barriers. But they always understood that trade policy was merely a tool for building a strong and independent country with a prosperous middle class, wrote Ambassador Robert Lighthizer, who served as United States Trade Representative in President Donald Trump’s administration.

What would Hamilton think of our dependency today on foreign nations, even hostile nations such as China, for necessities? Over time the United States has outsourced much of our manufacturing base in pursuit of free trade and globalization. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that we have outsourced too much, including crucial medical and pharmaceutical supplies. 

As McDonald wrote, “Hamilton rejected laissez-faire theories…., but “proposed, therefore, to use government to encourage economic change,” while “emphatic in his reliance upon voluntarism and capitalism.”  Both the Federalists and the Whigs followed an economic policy that was nationalistic in nature. The Republican Party continued the political philosophy of Hamilton and the Whigs through the leadership of President Abraham Lincoln and the Gilded Age administrations, most notably, the administration of President William McKinley. Both President Warren G. Harding and President Coolidge were influenced by Hamilton’s political and economic philosophy. 

“The party now in power in this country, through its present declaration of principles, through the traditions which it inherited from its predecessors, the Federalists and the Whigs, through their achievements and through its own, is representative of those policies which were adopted under the lead of Alexander Hamilton,” stated Coolidge in reflecting on Hamilton’s influence upon the Republican Party.  

Andrew Mellon, who served as Secretary of the Treasury in the administrations of President Harding, Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover, was also influenced by Hamilton’s philosophy. Mellon’s distinguished service as Secretary of Treasury also earned him the compliment of being referred to as the greatest Treasury Secretary since Alexander Hamilton. 

“Alexander Hamilton, whose genius was responsible for the establishment of our financial system, early committed this Government to a policy of debt payment and keeping expenditures within income,” wrote Andrew Mellon. It was these principles that drove both the Harding and Coolidge administrations. Reducing government spending, lowering tax rates, and paying down the national debt were all important policies of the 1920s, which led to substantial economic growth. 

The Harding and Coolidge administrations serve as an example for policymakers in how to address issues of spending, taxation, debt, trade, and immigration. Harding and Coolidge followed a conservative Hamiltonian approach to all these issues. 

Hamilton may be seen by some as a proponent of “big government,” which to a certain extent he was in compared to some of his contemporaries — most notably Thomas Jefferson, but his economic policies not only saved the young republic but created the American capitalistic system. Although Hamilton and Jefferson disagreed, Hamilton’s philosophy was not the beginning of modern liberalism or progressivism. As Michael P. Federici wrote in The Political Philosophy of Alexander Hamilton:

Hamilton was not a libertarian, but he was not an advocate of the managerial state either. His view of human nature would not have allowed either the faith in economic anarchy suggested by libertarians or the heavily regulated state advocated by Keynesians. Hamilton’s policies lack enough of the Gnostic flavor of Jacobinism or Progressivism to consider his political economy an antecedent to modern American liberalism. They were not designed or intended to eradicate poverty, fear, want, as FDR’s New Deal was designed to do, and they did not aim to dramatically change the scope of government’s role in individual lives. Hamilton’s objections were far more modest.

Federici’s argues that “Hamilton’s political economy becomes sober to the point of being incompatible with later ideologies and developments in American history, like the New Deal, the welfare state, and the managerial state.”

“Above all, Hamilton understood the powers of government to be limited—not only by the written law of the Constitution, but also by the natural rights affirmed by the consensus of the Founding generation. Hamilton favored an activist federal government, but he did so on grounds and within limits that are recognizably part of the American conservative and constitutional tradition,” wrote Carson Holloway, a Professor of Political Science at the University of Nebraska, Omaha. 

Conservatives often champion Thomas Jefferson as a hero, but Hamilton provides the best example of a prudent conservative statesman. Coolidge and other conservatives understood the importance of Hamilton and today’s conservatives should embrace his conservative nationalism. 

President Coolidge was correct when he wrote “when America ceases to remember his greatness, America will no longer be great.” 

Robert Gates, who served as Secretary of Defense in the Bush and Obama Administrations, said this of then Vice President Joe Biden in his 2014 memoir. 

President Biden’s streak continues in Afghanistan. The level of incompetence displayed in the Biden Administration’s exit strategy in Afghanistan, if you can call it a strategy, is breathtaking. 

First, they publicly announce the timeline. 

Second, they draw down troops before evacuating civilians and Afghan allies who applied for visas. 

Third, because of the arbitrary timeline for drawing down troops, the Biden administration had to choose between defending Bagram Air Force Base, about 40 miles north of Kabul, and defending Kabul International Airport and the U.S. Embassy. They decided to leave Bagram, which could have been a vital resource even with its distance from Kabul in this current evacuation effort. The Biden Administration ultimately didn’t leave enough troops to protect anything. 

Fourth, not only did they abandon Bagram, but they left the Taliban a treasure trove of military equipment which could end up being used against us at a later date or sold to our enemies for intelligence purposes. 

Fifth, they trusted the Taliban to keep their word, essentially outsourcing security to the Kabul Airport to the Taliban. 

Sixth, Politico reported on Thursday that some genius gave the Taliban a list of people traveling to Kabul Airport. Sure, let’s provide the Taliban with a kill list; that seems bright. 

On Thursday morning, two suicide bombers connected to ISIS killed (at the time of writing) 12 Marines and one Navy Corpsman (medic) and scores of Afghans near one of the gates to the Kabul Airport. The deadliest day for American servicemembers in a decade. 

Gee, who would have thought terrorists would have free reign under the Taliban? It is difficult to stop suicide bombers, but if we evacuated out of Bagram with its hardened defenses or evacuated civilians long before the Taliban reached Kabul, this scenario would be more unlikely. 

President Biden’s remarks to the nation on Thursday did not scream confidence. On the contrary, he appeared weak, tired, and I wondered if he would fall asleep during his moment of silence. 

It was embarrassing and awkward to watch, especially after stating he had been “instructed” to call on certain reporters. He can’t even do unscripted press conferences, which he cut short because he had an upcoming meeting… “for real.” (As if they wouldn’t wait for the President of the United States.)

“We will hunt you down and make you pay,” he promised.

With what troops? From what forward operating base? Finding them using what human intelligence gathered from a shrinking pool of allies in-country? 

Hey, at least he ordered flags to be lowered to half-staff; that shows the terrorists. 

The president then said he stood by his decision to exit, saying it was time to end a twenty-year war, and then blamed the Trump Administration. However, the Biden Administration must have liked the deal the Trump Administration reached with the Taliban because it was one of the few things they didn’t take steps to reverse. 

Regardless of the table the Trump Administration set, no one forced Biden to yank the table cloth out from underneath the dishes. Our shameful exit is his legacy. Instead of taking responsibility, he passes around blame and attempts to gaslight the American people. 

Our choice wasn’t between staying in Afghanistan in perpetuity and this disastrous exit. 

Biden’s incompetence led to this crisis. His remarks about keeping the deadline and staying the course demonstrate he lacks the competence to fix the mess he made. 

The manipulation of people through political rhetoric and contrived events has a lengthy history. It is easy to bait people, especially the reactionary, to get the desired result and advance an agenda.

Let’s say you’re an anti-capitalist. There are not too many of them around so that should make for a suitable test case. These anti-capitalists (ACs) are actually neo-Marxists whose desire is to erase national borders, convert government and economics to a socialist system, eliminate private property, and generally control the thought life of the nation. I can’t think of any movement so extreme, so we should be able to look at this dispassionately.

Now back to white replacement theory (WRT). It’s been around in various forms for a long time. It was a concern of progressives such as  Woodrow Wilson and Margaret Sanger. They were quite specific about limiting the Asian and Southern European populations in the U.S. Whether through the accusation of criminal intent (the Alien and Sedition Act) or through extermination (eugenics and abortion) the perception was part of progressive ideology. That’s just history. Part of that remains today. It is not uncommon to hear progressives articulate that all citizens of Israel ought to register as foreign agents. It is, again, an ugly system.

Then there are the KKK & related groups. They’re all pretty small, at least formally. Only around five thousand KKK members are in the U.S. But with what you read in the news it seems like more. (sigh) And there are others, of course.

Again, this has no place in the Christian life or in the church.

But these people are often reactionary. We know there are reactionaries in every crowd. What’s the best way to bait them? If I were to guess it would be to open the border. Let a few million people stream in unquestioned, and in these days untested for COVID-19, and you’re going to get a reaction.

Now the target reacts. Why he asks, would anyone want to let twenty million people into this country? One of the first reactions is that there is a hatred for what people who are of originally European descent have built. Then the response is “they hate white people.”

Similar reactions abound.

Does that mean it’s all “white replacement theory?” No. Some may be. Others, it seems, don’t see the bigger AC picture. That picture is the intent to disrupt the system.

Reactionary comments that address the symptom of allowing millions to enter without restriction but don’t address the issue behind the situation, those comments can be taken either way. Are they all partaking in WRT? Probably not. Are some? Likely so.

My friends from Singapore, from the Philippines, from China, Taiwan, and Japan, from various countries in Africa, from India and Nepal, all of these people have to do their paperwork. They do. And they’re all my friends. But when it comes to the Southern border, there’s some manipulation going on. It is intended to disrupt our system. The full picture, all of the methods and plans, that I’ve not gathered yet. And it seems many of the reactionary crowd has no idea of the broader framework at play. To many of us, closing the Southern border is not about race. It’s about stopping the manipulation of a corrupt government. Nothing more, nothing less. Any suggestion otherwise is a complete fabrication. But it’s not like that hasn’t happened before.

Cross-post.

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”

He was so prescient. People judge truth claims based on whether they conform with societal norms.

It is amazing how many think that truth is determined by popular vote or what popular culture seems to think. Far too many people, even within the church, believe truth is determined by what feels good and is convenient.  The prophet Isaiah gives a stern warning for those who are tempted to view truth in this way, and disdain what is right:

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:20-21, ESV).

If you go down this path, the world may applaud, but come judgment day you’ll find you are sadly mistaken. If you constantly receive the applause of men for what you believe it may be time to reconsider what you believe.