We are headed to the deserts of Southern Cal for a little respite with family. We will not be far from the home of Bill Keyes, one of the few "successful" homesteaders to have lived in what is now Joshua Tree National Monument. On a previous trip, I took a tour of Bill's place and it was stunning to see the remarkable evidence of a hard-scrabble existence he carved out for himself, his wife, and his children in this inhospitable place. Talk about living "off the grid." If you ever have a chance to take the tour, it will inspire you with all that one man accomplished without what we consider the "necessities" of life.

Unlike Bill who made do without electricity, we plan to turn the lights back on at Light-work in two weeks - see you then.

I read about a curious conversation from the life of King David. To appreciate what caught my ear, ponder the art of the ultimatum. Presidents and Kings need to be masters of the art when declaring a final demand, one whose rejection will end negotiations and be followed by a resort to force. There are lots of ways to mess up.

• The Petulant: Provoke a fight that's not worth fighting.
• The Pacifist: Fail to issue an ultimatum when vital interests are threatened.
• QuickDraw McGraw: Issue an ultimatum when there are viable alternatives still on the table.
• Johnny-Come-Lately: Issue an ultimatum after a "point of no return" has already been passed.
• Mr. Hollow Threat: Draw an appropriate line in the sand, but attach it to a threat you have no intention of using.
• The Cream-Puff: Make a reasonable demand, but attach it to a threat of insufficient force.

The above possibilities are enough (there are plenty more) to illustrate how easy it is to get it wrong and singularly daunting it is to get it right. David understood this art well. While Saul was still alive and seeking David's death, a group from the tribe of Benjamin came to his stronghold. Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin, so David had good reason to be suspicious of the intentions of these new recruits. He delivered a "choose-whom-you-will-serve" ultimatum: Then some of the sons of Benjamin and Judah came to the stronghold to David. David went out to meet them, and said to them, “If you come peacefully to me to help me, my heart shall be united with you; but if to betray me to my adversaries, since there is no wrong in my hands, may the God of our fathers look on it and decide” (1 Chron. 12:16-17).

What kind of ultimatum is this? The first half makes perfect sense: Help me and we will become a great team. But in the second half, David's "threat" would strike a "modern man of enlightenment" as the words of the cream-puff: Mess with me and you'll have to deal with God. In a day when life is defined with God factored out of the equation, a threat has no "teeth" when it invokes God.

To get an appreciation for the modern irony of David's ultimatum, imagine saying this to a robber who has you at gun point: "Walk away. If you don't, you will answer to God for whatever you have done to me." How many thieves would find this compelling? How many would flee in terror for their fear of God?

David's ultimatum is a window into a value system profoundly different from modernity. David knew how to wield a big stick, but the verdict of heaven's opinion was of far greater consequence. The worst possible outcome, from David's perspective, was for a man to be on God's bad side. The poverty of modern "threat making" stands in such stark contrast. Where there is no respect for God, men are left to issue ultimatums that depend entirely upon their own efforts. Such ultimatums only carry as much force as the stick one is able and willing to wield.

Do we believe that men will answer to God for their actions? Is this the worst that could happen to those who act on their intentions against us? Is this what leaks out when we utter a threat? If not, our value system may fit the times but not the heart of David, a "man after God's own heart."

Our English word, "fear," is most often used to denote panic, terror, and dread, so it seems decidedly ill-suited to describe a positive response to the God whom we are also encouraged to "love." How does one love God AND fear Him? It seems like it should be one or the other. Indeed, the Apostle John seems to say that fear and love are polar opposites: There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love (1 John 4:18).

The Greek word phobos (used by John and elsewhere by almost every other New Testament writer) has a broader range of meaning than the English word "fear." In some contexts, phobos is a positive virtue that is translated by words like "awe," "respect," and "reverence." In others, phobos is something to be avoided. Compare these two passages: "On some have mercy with fear" (Jude 23); "And all the people . . . asked Him to leave them, for they were gripped with great fear" (Luke 8:37). In Jude, "fear" assists one to show mercy - this phobos is good; In Luke, "fear" drives a people to put distance between themselves and Jesus - this phobos is bad. Notice another thing about this passage in Luke. The "bad fear" of the people in Luke 8:37 is fear OF the Lord! Here are a people who really "fear the Lord" but this fear produces a disaster: They compel Him to leave the scene!

For Paul, the fear of the Lord is a powerful and positive motivator (2 Cor. 5:11). But for the residents of Gerasene country, their fear of the Lord motivated an aversion to Him. Think about what they had witnessed. Prior to Jesus' arrival, a man had become the unrestrained terror of the neighborhood through demonic power. Yet, at the man's first meeting with Jesus, the Lord merely used words to accomplish what neither chains nor posse's had here-to-for been able. Again through mere words, Jesus provoked a local shortage of ham and bacon when the demonic horde was promptly dispatched to a herd of swine. Obviously, everything about "life as normal" was subject to change with Jesus around.

Jesus was the enemy of the status quo and the Gerasenes liked their status quo. They had their own agenda, their own plan for what their lives should look like. So when Jesus flashed some muscle, it threatened their comfortable little existence. To see how even the demons were subject to Him made it hard to assert that they themselves were not. When men who resent the Lord are confronted by His power and faced with their accountability, their fear is about consequences. They fear the Lord, not because they love Him, but because they despise Him, despise His power and authority, despise His right to call them to account for their opposition, despise Him for administering punishment. This is fear borne by hate.

1 John 4:18 tells us what happens when this kind of fear has a close encounter with God's love. If a man's eyes are opened and he grasps what actually happened when Jesus died for him on the cross, he sees that the one he has hated loves him with a perfect love. How can he not love Him back? As he does, the fear borne by hate evaporates in the face of His perfect love. This is John's point in 1 John 4:18.

But there is more to the story. The awareness of accountability to God is transformed by love from being a penalty to a privilege. It is an honor to live in a way that pleases the God who loves us with perfect love. This is fear borne by love. An image that helps to capture what this kind of love looks like is discerned in the newlyweds' first meal. By love, the bride has prepared her table. But as "the first bite" approaches, she is anxious and apprehensive. She longs to see her beloved's face beam with pleasure and his approving gaze turn toward her. Here is fear borne by love.

Yes, JP, there are other ways to fear God. But this is the best way.

Fox News has become the brunt of censure from the White House with President Obama weighing in today. Alas, the president said nothing to counter the broadsides lobbed at Fox. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has announced that Fox News is  “not a news organization so much as it has a perspective.” David Axelrod went on ABC's "This Week" and called for a proper shunning of Fox by the "good" news organizations.

Is anyone in doubt about what is REALLY going on here? The king’s wrath is like the roaring of a lion, But his favor is like dew on the grass (Prov. 19:12). The President and his administration define a respectable news organization as one that aids and agrees with them. An illegitimate one hinders and questions. The former will receive praise and benefits, the latter will hear the lion roar. President Nixon had his "enemies list" and Lamar Alexander (see clip above) sees the beginnings of something similarly unproductive in this dustup.

Journalistic objectivity, the notion that news can be reported from some value-free neutrality, is a fiction. The optimist and the pessimist report the same fact about their glass of water. But declaring it "half full" or "half empty" ascribes to this fact meaning that comports with their decidedly different outlooks. All news organizations attempt to give meaning to the facts they report; they use them to tell a story drawn from what is seen and heard. Their selection of what video clips to show (and which to reject), how it should be edited, and which sound bites to play will reflect their sense of what is important.

So I find it more than a little ridiculous for Fox to be impugned for offering "perspective," when every news organization does no less. In fact, I appreciate Fox for regularly bringing together proponents of opposing views, a practice rarely seen on the "good" news networks. Which is worse, the news organization that is clear about its "perspective," or one which peddles "perspective" no less while pretending it doesn't?

I am not objective. I am unashamed, even proud, to view my world through the lens of the Bible. Where someone might celebrate the latest victory for a "woman's right to choose," I will weep for the innocents. The goal is not to jettison perspective, but to adopt the right perspective, which, from my perspective, will be God's.

The Cambrian period, dated from 542 to 488 million years ago (give or take a few million), presents a remarkable paleontological panorama. Prior to the Cambrian, the fossil evidence shows the presence of some sponges and what-not. But then in a geological flash, numerous phyla (distinguishable, defined, and developed body plans) burst onto the scene - hence the term, the "Cambrian Explosion."

The resultant problem for Neo-Darwinism is manifold. Certainly the absence of any fossil record of transitional forms is an obvious and perplexing issue. But there are some profound and no less troubling matters arising from our current understanding of data processing.

I watched the DVD last night, including the 60 minutes of bonus material. It's all good! It is well-suited to home-schooling (but is not going to hold the interest of most elementary and many middle school student), adult discussion groups, and for sharing with friends who are open and interested in "Intelligent Design." The militant Darwinist will dismiss it. But anyone who wants to be allowed to consider the evidence will appreciate the producer's focus on the fossil record itself and his restraint in posing solutions.

There is a great nugget tucked away in the bonus material. On the page for "Signature in the Cell" is a menu tab titled, "Interview with Stephen Meyer." His story about the programmer who said, "Someone has been here before," will prompt you to think about life and our Creator in new ways.

Want to spark some intelligent discussion with science minded friends? The decision about purchasing this DVD is no dilemma.

Countless noble evergreens have given their lives for the cause of health care - the various mega bills that have been littering congressional committee rooms are but the last vestiges of the pulp they sacrificially yielded to the cause. Would that a spirited lawyer would represent these silent giants of wood and dell in their struggles against the ravages of health care.

Alas, no champion has stepped forth: We must save them by throwing a wrench of simplicity into the gear-works of bureaucracy. After much deep thought (for about 5 minutes), I have come to my eureka moment. I hereby propose for your consideration "FlemCare: Health Insurance for Everyman." It doesn't require two reams of paper per copy; it operates on a very simple premise that can be captured in a single sentence - Allow every individual to enjoy the full benefits of the health-care he reckons worth having.

I will parse this principle, the FlemCare Prime Directive, momentarily. First note two operational requirements for FlemCare to work well. (1) "Group health insurance" premiums would be considered income and subject to income tax. (2) Individual health insurance premiums would be exempt from income tax (up to a certain amount). This would give everyone with income a "tax discount" for purchasing individual health insurance. By giving a tax advantage to individual health insurance plans, FlemCare creates an environment conducive to individual choice, where every individual gets Goldilocks insurance - "just right!"

Okay, let's break down the core principle: Allow every individual to enjoy all the benefits of the health-care he reckons worth having. Note first the phrase "reckons worth having." It represents that an individual makes some quantifiable determination of the value of a health-care package. He attaches a number to it, a price he is willing to pay for what he receives. A package is "reckoned worth having" when a man buys it. "To allow every individual to enjoy the full benefits" means to give him free and unhindered access to the services for which he has paid. If a man purchases a "$100 discount on every prescription," he has a contractual right to receive that benefit.

Remove restrictions limiting the number of insurance companies that can compete in any given state. Remove requirements about the types of coverage that have to be included in their products. Allow insurance companies to sell insurance as car companies sell cars. Allow them to develop SUV's, sedans, pickups and sports cars. Allow them to create "options" that can be added to a plan based upon the customer's needs. Allow insurance companies to price plans according to a risk assessment for each individual. If they want to offer a non-smoker a cheaper policy, let them. (As is currently the case with life insurance.) Allow companies to market packages they believe will sell and allow buyers to purchase plans they want.

Under FlemCare, everyone goes out and buys the insurance plan he considers to be a bargain and suited to his needs. As a bonus, he gets a tax break on premiums. This feature of FlemCare accomplishes something important. It requires the government to support health care by a "loss of tax revenue," NOT through an increase in revenue.

So here's what everyone does under FlemCare: Individuals purchase what they want and enjoy a tax break for doing so. Insurance companies compete for the business of individuals by providing superior products at competitive prices. The government requires that insurance providers market their products using some sort of straight-forward and standardized "benefit and cost summary," kind of like a new car sticker or the "Good Faith Estimate" you received when you applied for a home mortgage. The judicial system would make sure that individuals receive the benefits they have purchased and that companies compete fairly. The government would also operate the "FlemCare Reallocation Plan" and "FlemCare Grace" described below.

Under FlemCare, you do not have to be a US citizen to participate. Individuals are free to purchase coverage and companies are free to sell coverage to all US citizens and residents. This solves the "illegal aliens" problem. If they want to buy insurance and get a tax break, let them.

What about those who have a pre-existing condition or some other situation that makes them "uninsurable?" An enterprising insurance provider might establish themselves in this niche market by providing a product line suited to the needs of their customers and priced at a level appropriate to the risk. But, to be sure, there will be some who cannot afford the high rates their risk category would call for. What should be done?

Those who cannot afford or elect not to purchase health care would fall under the FlemCare Reallocation Plan. Here's how it works: Whenever someone without health care receives uncovered care, their medical providers should be paid by drawing from the recipient's government entitlements like welfare, unemployment, and social security. For example, Joe is 59, has no insurance and incurs a bill for $10,000 at the local hospital. The government would pay his bill but recover the expense by delaying his social security eligibility date for about one year. It would be as if Joe got an advance from social security to pay his hospital bill.

Granted, an uninsured cancer patient could easily incur costs that bar him from drawing social security until he is 92. But that was his choice when he elected not to buy insurance. The marvelous advantage of this plan is that it results in a "zero net cost" because money for health costs is offset by corresponding reductions in other government entitlements.

What makes FlemCare so different from all the current proposals is its rigid insistence that individuals receive the benefits and consequences of their choices. This is clearly a biblical notion: "For each one will bear his own load" (Gal 6:5). "Health-care" which insists that everyman has a right to something he has not earned moves all men toward indolence. Not very healthy!

There is one more aspect to FlemCare, "FlemCare Grace." For those who are facing a medical crisis without insurance, the government could maintain a website discretely summarizing their situations. Here is where grace would find a place in FlemCare. Individuals would be encouraged to make donations to these needs. Because of its commitment to "improved health care," the government would treat the donor's gift as tax deductible and the income to the recipient as tax exempt. The lost revenue would be the government's way of saying, "We want to match someone's gift with a nice little bonus. We want you to be taken care of enough to ask for less from you."

Our Senators and Representatives have championed the cause of the uninsured. "FlemCare Grace" would give them (and all who have a heart of genuine compassion) a very direct way to address the need. I would be delighted for our congressmen to lead the way by giving extravagantly toward the grace plan from their own pockets. Now that would be leadership!

Tell your friends and neighbors about Flemcare where every individual enjoys the full benefits of the health-care he reckons worth having! Tell your congressman about FlemCare! Tell me what you think?

Fox News ran a story today, although the issue hasn't gotten much of a media spotlight. It should! The Congressional Budget Office report on fiscal 2009 shows some serious deficit spending went down. When you compare how much Uncle Sam spent in the last 12 months with how much revenue he received, there is a $1.4 trillion shortfall. We have all gotten used to saying "trillion," perhaps we need a refresher on what this represents.

Let's make a stack of one dollar bills. To give our stack some stability, we will lay 4 bills end to end. We will add 5 more similar rows adjacent to our first row. So now we have completed our first layer that is 4 by 6 bills in size, roughly 2' by 15". Next we will add 41,667 more such layers (and subtract 8 bills from the last layer) to make it an even $1,000,000. This stack will be a few inches shy of 14 feet tall. (A dollar bill is 0.010922 cm thick.) Okay, that's our first stack.

Now let's repeat the same process and create an additional one million four hundred thousand more "one million dollar stacks." If we butt each new stack up against the previous one in a long line, we would create a side of 1,183 stacks. We would then form a second side of 1,183 stacks perpendicular to the first. Now we just fill in the interior defined by our two adjacent sides with 1,397,124 more "one million dollar stacks," and, voila, we have a handy (maybe not so handy) visual representation of what $1.4 trillion dollars looks like.

Our resultant rectangular solid will be 2,366 feet long (almost one half mile), almost 1,479 feet wide (a little over one quarter mile), and slightly under fourteen feet tall. This is the equivalent of an 80 acre parcel of land covered to a depth of fourteen feet with tightly stacked dollar bills. That is over seven parcels just like the one pictured above, cleared of all trees and stacked tightly to a depth of 14 feet with dollar bills.  80 acres of cash with 41,667 layers of dollars bills covering the entirety represents how much more the government spent in the last year than it received in revenue. How encouraging!

Fatal optimism yet lives! Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has spoken plainly enough. He has declared that Israel should be "wiped off the map." He has the missile capability to do so. He is near acquiring the nuclear capability to do so. And, most importantly, he demonstrates the will to use these capabilities. Some might demur that acting on these aspirations would be suicidal. They might declare, "Surely no one would allow such a madman to effect such schemes. Surely he would not hazard the wrath and reprisal of the international community?"

Benjamin Netanyahu, the current prime minister of Israel, believes the madman. He is settled in his conviction that the risks to Israel from a nuclear Iran are unacceptable. There is NO DOUBT in my mind that he is preparing to extinguish Iran's nuclear facilities. Even if a coalition (that includes Russia and China) could be cobbled together, and if that coalition could muster enough chutzpah to effect harsh sanctions, and if this could be immediately effected and vigorously maintained (those are some very iffy "ifs."), there may not be enough time for such measures to achieve the desired effect. Netanyahu knows this, and also has reason (justified in my mind) to think that President Obama will not support the military action he is planning. He is alone, the clock is ticking, and he believes the madman.

There is a high probability that Israel will launch an attack against Iran in the near future. There is also a high probability that Iran will lob a nuclear warhead into Israel as soon as it is able. It is unclear who will take action first. But let's be clear about about this: Throwing firebrands is the madman's trademark. He may disguise his intentions even by feigning affability, but he is prepared to deal in death. Brace yourselves!

Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows and death, so is the man who deceives his neighbor, and says, “Was I not joking?” (Prov. 26:18-19).

In a previous post, we acknowledged that Jesus repeatedly affirmed this simple formula. If we will ask, the Father will do. Don't confuse its simplicity with its "degree of difficulty," however. There is something inside us that will put forth a plethora of reasons NOT to ask. Here are three:

1. Asking Implies Accountability – When we ask God for something, our actions are an acknowledgment that He is in charge. By asking, the "asker" is admitting that he is not the master of his own destiny. Who doesn't feel the pull of saying, "I can do it myself?" To ask God is to pitch this self-delusion and declare, "God is the One upon whom I depend - I need what only He can give."
2. Asking Invites Refusal - When we pose a question to God - "Will You do this?" - it is a question that allows for at least two possibilities: "Yes" or "no!" Who likes being told "no?" So when we ask God for something that we really, REALLY want, we are allowing for the possibility that God could say, "not now," or "not ever." That risk can keep us from asking. But consider this: If God says "no," is that a bad thing? Not at all, if you understand God's love, wisdom, and power. God is committed to our best (love), knows what would serve our best interests (wisdom), and is perfectly capable of accomplishing it (all-powerful). So when God says "no," knowing His love, wisdom, and power allows me to respond by saying, "Thanks for your 'no.' You have refused this request, because love wouldn't grant such a thing. Thanks for watching out for me."
3. Asking Requires Waiting - When we ask, we have to wait for an answer. That's a challenge, especially in America where we want it NOW! So rather than ask and wait, we are tempted to rush after it on our own. Asking is a declaration of a profound preference: "I want what God chooses to give me, regardless of how long it takes, rather than what I can seize for myself right now."

The mere act of asking is by itself the first and foremost element of the art of asking. It is a form of worship wherein a man (or woman) declares his dependence on God, his trust in God for an answer that will be the product of love and wisdom, and his willingness to respect God's discernment of the right timing. Simply, to ask is to worship God.

But several of the qualifying phrases referenced by Jesus in our master chart add to our understanding of the art of asking. In Matthew 21:22, the asking is qualified by the phrase, "in prayer, believing." It will not do to make a request of God while entertaining doubt and uncertainty about God's ability to do what is asked. We may ask God for the impossible, but such prayers will be ineffective unless they arise from a confidence that nothing is impossible with God.

Several times, Jesus speaks of asking "in My name." This is often the basis for adding a formula at the end of a prayer, "In Jesus Name, Amen," sort of a magic charm that makes a prayer more powerful. (There is nothing intrinsically wrong with closing a prayer with these words, but this is not Jesus' point.) There are two principles captured by this phrase. In a passage like John 16:23-24, praying in Jesus' name means making requests on His authority. To pray in Jesus' name means to come before the Father and declare, "I am making this request of You because Jesus has given me the authority to do so." It's a bold and gutsy move, but one for which the death of Jesus has qualified us. Amazing!

The second idea behind "asking in Jesus' name" is given a more expansive treatment in John 15:7: “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it shall be done for you.” Note two things: (1) The one who understands the art of asking is an abiding disciple. He maintains his vital connection with Jesus. (2) When Jesus' words abide in a disciple, his thoughts and actions are informed by and reflect Jesus' teachings; he is "in tune" with Jesus' desires. His requests are the kind of which Jesus would say, "Now that's exactly what I would ask for. Good request!"

The obvious implication is that growing in our skill to ask well will be accompanied by growth in our ability to use "Word-driven prayers." Before making a prayer request of God, locate Bible verses that speak to the issues. Figure out what Jesus would ask for if He was to bring the situation before God. Pray for that and you are praying "in Jesus' name."

One more element to the art of asking is addressed in Matthew 18:19. The clause, "if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask," underscores the importance of agreement. When two disciples are praying for opposite outcomes, their prayers are probably a prelude to disappointment, at least for one party. But when they agree, the prayer power meter jumps. To increase your effectiveness in prayer, work with one or two others to discern what Jesus would pray for. Then start praying with one voice. Then step back and see God work!

When Jesus says it ONCE, that is enough. When He repeats it TWELVE TIMES, it should be more than enough to make things perfectly clear - "Asking" moves the hand of God. "Ask," the single word in the blue column above, is found in each of the dozen passages in the left column. This word constitutes the simple sum of our part of an equation. We do the asking (blue column), then God does the doing (lavender column). (By the way, you can download an expanded and printable copy of this nifty table by clicking here.) So when we want to see what can only be explained by the hand of God, our part is simple: Ask! James explains the flip side, "You do not have because you do not ask" (James 4:2).

Note three categories of information from this table that expand our understanding of "askology." (1) The One to whom our requests are directed is identified as the Father (3 times) or the Son (1 time). (2) The domain of what we can ask for is wide open, "anything," "whatever" or "whatever you wish," and "all things." Seems pretty simple, so far. (3) But HOW we ask is qualified by several phrases including "in My name," and "in prayer, believing." The clause, "if you abide in Me, and My words abide in you," appears in John 15:7 as a prerequisite for effective requests.

We are left with an inescapable conclusion: Not all requests are created equal. Those which meet the conditions in the "qualifier" column are answered by the Father's pleasure to act. No such guaranty is extended to requests that fail the "qualifier" test. Asking God matters, we can ask Him for anything, but how we ask makes all the difference between "do" and "not do." So what does such an art of asking look like, anyway?

Here is a remarkable incident from the earthly ministry of Jesus:

As Jesus was approaching Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the road begging. Now hearing a crowd going by, he began to inquire what this was. They told him that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by. And he called out, saying, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” Those who led the way were sternly telling him to be quiet; but he kept crying out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” And Jesus stopped and commanded that he be brought to Him; and when he came near, He questioned him, “What do you want Me to do for you?” (Luke 18:35-41).

Can you imagine having Jesus, the only One capable of accomplishing the impossible, asking you the same question? What if, today, Jesus personally stood before you and queried, "What do you want Me to do for you?" What answer would you give that is worthy of such a question?

This is not an isolated incident in the life and ministry of Jesus. The Gospels are rich with accounts in which Jesus seeks, listens to, and responds to requests. He also clearly and repeatedly taught the principle that is captured in John 14:14: "If you ask me anything in My name, I will do it."

There are twelve different places in the Gospels where Jesus teaches to this principle. In every instance, the term, "ask," is the pole around which His teaching orbits. In three cases, "ask" is a command. In three instances, "ask" is the first half of a conditional statement. In the remaining six, "ask" is at the center of a statement of fact. Here are all twelve with "ask" highlighted:

Commands

• “Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you” (Matthew 7:7).
• “And I say to you, ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you” (Luke 11:9).
• "Until now you have asked for nothing in My name; ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be made full” (John 16:24).

Conditional Statements

• “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it” (John 14:14).
• “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it shall be done for you” (John 15:7).
• Truly, truly, I say to you, if you shall ask the Father for anything, He will give it to you in My name (John 16:23).

Statements of Fact

• “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!” (Matthew 7:11).
• “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 18:19).
• “And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you shall receive” (Matthew 21:22).
• “Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they shall be granted you” (Mark 11:24).
• “And whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son” (John 14:13).
• “You did not choose Me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask of the Father in My name, He may give to you” (John 15:16).

If Jesus revisited a topic a dozen times, and repeatedly affirmed what He taught by His example, you would justifiably conclude, "This matters!" There is no room here for doubt or confusion: Jesus desires to receive and respond to our requests. He wants us to ASK!

Who ya' gonna call when you need health care relief FAST. Yea, that's the "King of the Wild Frontier" on the left and he has a totally different take on how to tackle the problem. If you have got the context from the previous post, then read on for the rest of the story. (Note: This is longer than my usual post, but you'll be glad to have read it.) The "narrator" continues:

Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.

Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.

I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:

"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."

He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said:

"Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."

I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:

Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.

The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.

The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.

So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don't be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted."

He replied: "I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."

I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and – "

"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."

"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."

"No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"

"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."

"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"

Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."

I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:

"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."

I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."

He laughingly replied:

"Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way."

"If I don't," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."

"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."

"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."

"My name is Bunce."

"Not Horatio Bunce?"

"Yes."

"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go."

We shook hands and parted.

It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.

I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him – no, that is not the word – I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted – at least, they all knew me.

In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"Fellow citizens – I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."

I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."

He came upon the stand and said:

"Fellow citizens – It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today."

He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

"Now, Sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.

"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased – a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

So I sought a copy of the book to satisfy myself that I wasn't being scammed by another internet masquerade. In 2004, University Press of the Pacific in Honolulu issued a reprint of the original which I was able to procure from those amazing book purveyors at Amazon. Sure enough, chapter XIII lines up with the email version.

There is no record of the "Not Yours to Give" speech delivered by Crockett: Neither the Register of Speeches nor the Congressional Globe have transcripts of speeches made on the House floor. However, Crockett's vote and personal actions in reference to a similar bill (in April, 1828) are consistent with the position espoused in this speech. The author, Edward Ellis, introduces this chapter as the recollections of an unnamed "narrator" whose business affairs brought him to Washington. The narrator recounts his observations of Crockett on the House floor and a personal exchange a few days later. Here is part one of this account.

Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.

I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support – rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

"Mr. Speaker – I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Yesterday, we noted that Joe the Shouter was about to get his comeuppance. The House did not disappoint. Their most common punishments for members are expulsion, censure, reprimand or fine. But they decided to use a lesser measure, a "resolution of disapproval." Wilson's conduct was cited as a "breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings of the joint session, to the discredit of the House." The vote was, understandably, divided along party lines. I'm not sure if the Democrats have exhausted their outrage, yet. Presumably, they are now ready to get back to business as usual.

Here is an irony. Fox News has been showing a series of video-taped interchanges between Acorn staff members and a filmmaker and associate posing as a pimp and prostitute. Click here to watch one. A fourth videotape was shown last night and another is promised for today. The one from last night was outrageous! I have no doubt there will be an ample supply of spin and dissembling from those associated with Acorn. I am confident  that the film-makers and their work will be scorned and discredited.

But how can you watch these interviews and not marvel at Acorn staff members' nonchalance, even enthusiasm, while their clients outline a scheme that reeks of  debauchery? Where is the shock, where is the outrage? Where is the staff member who warns, "What you are doing is terribly wrong. You need to get your life headed in the right direction."

What a contrast between Acorn staff's casual response to gross immorality and the passionate ado of The House over a two-word breech of decorum. Mind you, I am not making little of House Democrats. Let them enjoy their diversion. But the quickness and intensity of their disapproval serves to highlight its absence at Acorn.

What a sad commentary on our society that many view immoral behavior with casual acceptance, even with a tinge of pride in their enlightened tolerance. The Apostle Paul dealt with something similar in what was the "sin city" of his time, Corinth. A young man was having a brazen affair with his step mom, and those who knew the parties involved were celebrating their enlightenment in accepting this as normal. Paul declared, "It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst" (1 Cor. 5:1-2).

One of the litmus tests of the health of our society, and our churches, is our ability to lament sin. If the response of Acorn staffers is a window into the heart of our culture, heaven help us. When Jesus said, “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted” (Matt. 5:4), He was talking about being broken-hearted by the things that break God's heart. My heart is broken by what these Acorn interviews say about who we are becoming. God forgive us.

I was shocked, shocked, I say, to hear someone shout, "You lie," during the President's recent address to Congress on September 9. That someone was Representative Joe Wilson from South Carolina. Ms. Pelosi's break from her glazed default position was but the first of what has become swelling outrage over the congressman's cheek. I am not about to defend the man's act; he himself has admitted there is no defense by personally apologizing to the President and Vice-President.

But let's put things in perspective. On Sunday, Sept 13, Chris Wallace of Fox News interviewed Representative Joe. Here's the transcript. After playing a video clip of the President's speech and Rep. Wilson's "town hall moment," he was asked what he was thinking when he shouted, "You lie!" Here's his response:

I just felt so provoked because I am on committee, on the committee -- Education and Labor. I know the amendments that were on Ways and Means -- at Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce that the Democrats voted down for citizenship verification. So I knew what he said was not true. I read the bill. I read all 1,000 pages.

In other words, although the proposed bill (or bills) did not authorize the provision of health care for illegal immigrants, an illegal immigrant would be able to freely access these benefits. Joe Wilson was outraged because some disingenuous razzmatazz was creating free health care for illegals while giving the impression of doing the exact opposite. The inclusion of a "no-health-care-for-illegal-immigrants" provision was mere wrapping paper. As if to make his point, the inclusion of a real enforcement mechanism has now become a live issue in deliberations by the gang of six currently drafting a Senate bill.

For someone to lie, two conditions must be met: He must misrepresent the facts and know that he is misrepresenting the facts. Simply getting your facts wrong can involve making an honest mistake. But when a man states what is untrue, and knows it is untrue, he has lied. As Rep. Joe listened to the President's speech, he assumed two things: What the President is saying is not true, and the President knows it.

Checking the first condition for lying is relatively simple: How do the facts line up with what someone has said? In this case, the facts appear to cut both ways. A "no-illegals" provision is in the the bill. But the absence of adequate enforcement of this provision makes its inclusion pointless. I'm with Joe on test #1. An unenforced denial of benefits equals a provision of benefits.

The second question is a lot trickier because you have to get in someone's head. Joe Wilson assumed that the President could not possibly think that this bill, despite its professions to the contrary, would deny health care to an illegal immigrant. Joe's outburst reflected his conclusion that the President knew better, that he was consciously deceiving Congress. On this count, I am not sure. It is possible that the President knows the toothlessness of this denial constitutes a de facto provision of health care to illegals. But it is also possible the President thinks that simply because he has said, "no-health-care-for-illegal-immigrants," it will somehow happen.

Even "Joe the Shouter" has dialed it back. Later in his interview with Chris Wallace, he acknowledged that the President did not meet both tests for lying: Got his facts wrong, yes. Intentionally misrepresented the facts, no comment. Here's the dialog:

WALLACE: Do you think when the president was saying what he said there that he was lying?

WILSON: I believe he was misstating the facts.

WALLACE: Well, you didn't say that. You said, "You lie."

WILSON: Well, I truly would have said it in a different way if I had time. And I — I respect, again, the president. But what he said was not accurate and that's why I'm glad they've now agreed to having citizen verification on Friday.

Getting at the facts can be a challenge, but it is nothing compared to getting in another man's head! So, Joe's outburst might have benefited by sticking closer to the facts. Had he shouted - "Not true!" - he could have stayed away from claims that assume his accuracy as a mind-reader.

I am confident that the Democratically controlled congress will make an example of "Joe the Shouter." I wonder if they will succeed in crowning him as a poster boy for town-hall discontent and award him a land-slide re-election. Frankly, there is something to admire in the man. We are hungry for representatives who will boldly speak up against business-as-usual politics. Joe the Shouter may have displayed the right stuff.

The way "stimulus" is being bandied about today, it can give the concept a bad name. It deserves better! The Bible has good things to say about it. In Hebrews, we are instructed, "And let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near" (Heb. 10:24-25). When believers get together, they ought to bring out the best in one another. Encouragement is a primary means by which to do so, and it is all the more needed with each passing day. According to these verses, a desire for healthy stimulus asks, "What can I say to a brother or sister that will put fuel in their tank to love God and others?"

Encouragement is the currency that funds the brand of stimulus God endorses! He uses it Himself! According to Romans 15:5, God is "the God who gives encouragement." The Apostle Paul teaches that any "stimulus" which is coercion in disguise is decidedly out of step with God's preferred method of doing business: "Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor. 9:7).

Men rely on force to get others to do what they deem best. God uses grace. His loving-kindness gives a man every reason to do the right thing while respecting his ability to make his own choice. I like God's way way better.

"Stimulus" can take many forms. Las Vegas is the consummate student of the subject and has applied its knowledge to great effect. Every year, millions are stimulated to excitedly empty their wallets and purses to benefit "the house." In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA's snazzy new logo above), the US Government has attempted to use its own special blend of stimulus to address the economic crisis.

Congress brewed up a mighty big batch of the stuff, $787 billion's worth! But it's for a noble cause, as the "full title" makes very clear: An act making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes. Obviously, this is a very noble cause, indeed! The specific provisions of the bill have been much debated. So I thought it might be helpful, instead, to deconstruct the concept of "stimulus." Let's ask the simple question, "What is it about this bill that renders it into 'stimulus?'"

A good place to begin is in the retelling of a common story used to illustrate the "two sides" of stimulus. Once upon a time, a vandal named Rufio threw a brick through a shop-keeper's storefront window. Geppetto came outside to examine the damage where he was met by some of his fellow townsfolk. Wanting to help Geppetto "look on the bright side," they encouraged him in the knowledge that this unfortunate event would have positive consequences. They first observed how the town glazier would have the benefit of gainful employment. He, in turn, would be able to use what he earned replacing Geppetto's window to pay for food for his family. This act would put money in the pocket of the grocer who would spend it for clothing, thereby aiding the local tailor. As their creativity waxed on, the original scofflaw seemed the perfect hero of economic recovery.

But, there is another side to what happened. Rufio's actions stole a choice from Geppetto. Before his window was broken, the money that it would cost to replace the glass was his to use as he chose. He could have saved it, if he wanted, or spent it for whatever purpose he deemed most desirable. But when Rufio did his work of "stimulating" the local economy, he imposed upon the shop-keeper's liberty. He compelled Geppetto to use his own money to pay for something that Rufio determined should be purchased.

Without Rufio's vandalism, Geppetto's decisions about how to spend his money would have had no less stimulatory effect on the local economy. The same domino effect would have occurred, albeit without its necessary starting point at the glazier's shop. Rufio stole from Geppetto the right to choose how he would use his own money. Rufio's brick was simply about control.

Is this not the heart of what is euphemistically being called "economic stimulus?" Our government (the Rufio counterpart) is collecting money from us, the Gepettos of America, and thereby curtailing our liberty. Instead of allowing us the freedom to decide for ourselves how best to use our money, Rufio / Uncle Sam is compelling it to be spent as he sees fit. Some might object, "Isn't this what government does, take our money to buy what it decides to?" Precisely! This is just bloated government doing what bloated government does, but with a new label intended to dress up the whole business as something noble.

Alas, what Uncle Sam is doing is actually even more egregious than Rufio. The ARRA bill spends almost a trillion dollars that the government does not have in its possession. So where does the money come from? Ultimately, from "future Geppetto." Uncle Sam takes out a loan to get his hands on the dollars to fund his bill. He is able to secure this loan from creditor nations on the promise to pay it back (with interest) from future tax revenue. Uncle Sam has limited the freedom of "future Geppetto" by saddling him with a debt obligation for the things that Uncle Sam has determined should be purchased right now.

The Cash for Clunkers program which "ran out of cash" yesterday (thankfully) took "stimulus" to new heights: It incentivized Geppetto to voluntarily smash his own window. He would be given a cash incentive to buy a new "energy efficient" window, which Uncle Sam would partially pay for by taking money from "future Geppetto."

So tell me, Geppetto, what does this "stimulus" stimulate in you?

In the letter to the church in Ephesus recorded in Revelation 2:1-8, Jesus affirms this congregation on several counts: They are hard working, persevering, devoted to the truth, and intolerant of false teachers. There is one warning sign: “But I have this against you, that you have left your first love” (Rev. 2:4). The terms of Jesus' condemnation make it clear that the Ephesians' love has been trending in the wrong direction. They formerly possessed a "first love," but have lost it. Where you would expect someone to love the Lord more with the passage of time, the Ephesians actually love the Lord LESS. This is abnormal and definitely a sign of something serious!

Their sister church, Thyatira, demonstrated what should have been: “I know your deeds, and your love and faith and service and perseverance, and that your deeds of late are greater than at first” (Rev. 2:19). The "deeds" of the Thyatiran believers are specified in the four terms, love, faith, service, and perseverance. In all four categories, this church has made progress. For example, their love has grown stronger with the passage of time. They mark a bold contrast with Ephesus where love has waned.

What, exactly, happened in Ephesus? And how would one who has "lost his first love" go about reclaiming it? Answering these question has been rendered more difficult for our culture's preoccupation with a type of "love" that is nothing of the sort. D. G. Myers has a fine post on his "commonplace blog" exploring the literary expressions of this pre-occupation. He elucidates, "All the literary world loves a lover, especially if passion overwhelms his commitments and will." Our Western culture is awash in glorious depictions of love as this powerful and external force prevailing over good sense, honor, and restraint. 

So, when contemporary Western Christians think of a "first love," they are quick to associate this phrase with the onset of an external force, something like the landfall of a hurricane. To "recover" a first love seems as attainable as conjuring the hurricane. How do you "recover" something that is not under your control, something that, in point of fact, controls you?

The problem, here, is created by a case of mistaken identity. The irresistible hurricane of passion is not love. It might be called as much by some, but it is diametrically opposed to what Jesus calls "love." In Jesus' dictionary, love is synonymous with unconditional commitment. This true form of love resists the hurricane; it boldly declares, "I will love you as a matter of choice. Despite whatever winds oppose that commitment, I will remain true to you."

Myers cites a McClatchy Newpapers post that provides a poignant illustration of the contrast between love that is commitment and "love" that destroys commitment. South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has shown the latter by his adulterous relationship with an Argentine television journalist. The former shines forth in a statement by his wife, Jenny Sanford. Here is a key excerpt: "I believe enduring love is primarily a commitment and an act of will, and for a marriage to be successful, that commitment must be reciprocal. . . . I remain willing to forgive Mark completely for his indiscretions and to welcome him back, in time, if he continues to work toward reconciliation with a true spirit of humility and repentance."

A profound demographic shift is transforming the western world. Birth control (with great dependance on abortion) was supposed to solve the problem of global over-population. Instead, it has doomed our grand children to live in a culture increasingly dominated by Islamic influence. This video is a clear and concise summary of what is happening. How does its insight into our future affect what you do today?

China has been sending boatloads of stuff to the US and, in turn, we have been sending boatloads of dollars to China. These dollars are "Federal Reserve Notes" which are IOU's from Uncle Sam. China has been using some of these IOU's to buy stuff, like gold (China's gold reserves have doubled in the last few years) and companies (resource companies that can fuel their expansion).

But even after buying lots of goodies with Sam's IOU's, China still has a pile of them. So they have asked themselves a perfectly reasonable question, "Why should we hold IOU's that don't pay any interest when we could put those IOU's to work?" So China has loaned over 800 billion dollars to the US by buying "Treasury Securities." Uncle Sam is happy to get his hands on more Federal Reserve Notes to use for "stimulating" the economy. China is happy to get some interest on these Notes, although they have expressed increasing concern over whether Uncle Sam will be able to pay back what he owes.

I tend to think China's fears have merit, although we ought not underestimate the power of Uncle Sam's printing press to create a loan repayment from thin air. This caveat notwithstanding, I am struck by a warning from the book of Proverbs: The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower becomes the lender’s slave (Prov. 22:7). China is the lender, the United States is the borrower. With each increase in the amount we owe China, we surrender more of our sovereignty.

Some might maintain that China is tied to the US and cannot scare away support for the dollar without hurting itself. But what will we do when the protection of our national interests conflicts with Chinese intentions? Will we oppose a lender who can easily say, "If you don't like what I'm doing, pay back what you owe!" Meeting that demand would require every single person in America to cough up over $2,500. Fat chance!

The Constitution of the United States was adopted for the purpose of securing the blessings of Liberty to the people of the United States. That end will not be realized as we deepen our national indebtedness and shamble toward servitude.