Death of a President

A Phoenix preacher named Steven Anderson has managed to get himself into the national media spotlight by praying for Barack Obama’s death.  One of his church members actually showed up at an Obama event carrying a weapon:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/31/phoenix-pastor-draws-protests-telling-church-prays-obamas-death/?test=latestnews

Regardless of what one thinks of Obama – and I don’t think very much of him – this type of talk is inexcusable.  Didn’t we just go through eight years of leftwing extremists wishing for George Bush’s assassination or death, even making movies and video games about it?  Ethics 101 — What’s wrong in one case is wrong in the other as well.

Phoenix pastor and debater James White has responded to Anderson, noting that Anderson is a King James Only advocate, someone who believes that the King James version of the Bible is inspired, not just the Bible per se:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3480

A good historical overview of the King James Bible can be found on Wikipedia at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version

As if anticipating KJV Onlyism, the KJV translators gave a fairer assessment of their own work: “[T]he very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession… contains the word of God, nay, is the word of God.”

Thus, from the scholars who gave us the KJV is the humble admission that even the poorest Protestant translations still contain the word of God.  The fact is, the KJV was composed to be the standard text for the Church of England, to be read in Anglican churches.  It reflects some of the ornate style and dignified language of the Jacobean period – the time of Shakespeare.  Despite its literary and historical merits, it is not the be all and end all of Bible translations.  Indeed, the old Geneva Bible was the translation that many of the English reformers used, not the KJV.

Anderson appears to be suffering from an inferiority complex.  On his webpage, he says he “holds no college degree” but has “well over 100 chapters of the Bible committed to memory.”  He apparently never got a ministerial degree, either, which may explain his hostility to Bible Colleges.

While it’s true that ministers don’t have to be elite philosopher kings in order to preach the gospel, there is no harm, and certainly much good, in getting an education before taking on ministerial duties.   St. Paul “spent some days with the disciples at Damascus” before beginning his ministry (Acts 9:19), and Apollos temporarily halted his preaching ministry in order to learn theology from Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:26).

Anderson’s KJV Onlyism may be inspired by the fact that he doesn’t know Greek or Hebrew, which is usually a requisite for pastors.  He gets upset when he hears preachers correcting the KJV by citing the original Greek.  “They are correcting the perfect Bible,” he says.

Anderson argues that hell is a literal place of fire and brimstone and is now located at the center of the earth.  He also believes Jesus descended into a literal fiery hell for three days.  Aside from Anderson’s very peculiar versions of geology and Christology, he does not understand that “hell” in the Bible is a translation of three Greek words, each having a different meaning, cf., where “hades” means place of death.  He also doesn’t understand that “Sheol” is the Hebrew term for place of death, and thinks the Spanish infierno is a better translation! 

It’s true that some theologians believe hell is a literal place of fire and torment, but it’s also true that many others believe fire is symbolic for separation-from-God, a punishment that hurts the soul (with shame, guilt, regret) the way fire hurts the physical body.

His lack of understanding of simile and symbolism leads him to accuse Jack Schaap of blasphemy.  It seems Schaap’s great sin was to describe the Christian’s relation to Jesus by way of a rather clumsy simile involving sexual relations within marriage.  Now the basic concept of bridal theology can be found in both the Old and New Testaments, but its indelicate elaboration only starts with Ambrose and with mystical theologians of the Middle Ages.

Schaap was merely following in that rather creepy tradition of overdoing the marriage simile.  Anderson is thus correct to oppose it, but I suspect his opposition has to do not so much with literary taste, as with a gnostic hatred of sex.  Like a true gnostic, he would probably deny that the Song of Solomon has any sexual content in it.

In Anderson’s world, “normal” men are never tempted by homosexuality, which means once a man becomes a homosexual, he is beyond help.  There is no preaching of the gospel to homosexuals in Anderson’s soteriology.

He is opposed to birth control, including the pill, which is, as he puts it, “the most heinous form of birth control.”  Likely Anderson would regard condoms as the invention of the anti-Christ.    As far as I see, neither the pill nor condoms actually take life, but rather prevent conception.  In Anderson’s view, however, preventing conception is like the sinner refusing salvation, so he regards family planning as selfishness.  Anderson’s proof-texting for these views is worthless, something he might have learned had he studied in seminary or graduated from a Bible College. 

Anderson is undoubtedly a legalist.  He is down on contemporary Christian music.  I agree with him there, but he descends into legalism when he advises people not to listen to their CDs throughout the week but only sing hymns.  He also says they should sing hymns from fifty years ago.  He’s also down on women wearing pants, or girls wearing “tight blue jeans.”  In addition, he says “there is really no way we can watch television.”  I would say that television is often unwatchable, but it’s up to the individual whether he watches it or not, not meddling preachers.  He opposes in vitro fertilization as well, regarding it as unnatural, and opposes male gynecologists since they have to look at nude women.  I suppose Anderson, following his own logic, must also oppose male doctors since they often have to look at unclothed women (surgery, child-birth, etc).

It’s all very fine to criticize contemporary culture, which is certainly bad enough, but there is something worse — legalism.  This is what happens when the standards of weak or immature Christians are imposed on other Christians or people in general.  What Anderson wants to impose on himself is his business, but if Christians want to watch TV, or a DVD, or listen to radio, that is their business, not his.

Because Anderson rejects Calvinism, his theology is not a theology of grace, but of works.  It’s no wonder his sermons and essays are so rambling and legalistic.  Because Anderson is an Arminian rather than a Calvinist, it’s all about getting up enough will power to strive against sin, to follow legalistic rules and regulations, to view life through the prism of fear, sin, and wrath.

Because he’s a legalist, Anderson sees enemies and temptations all around him, but his greatest enemy appears to be Barack Obama, whom he says he hates.  “If you want to know how I’d like to see Obama die, I’d like him to die of natural causes,” said Anderson.  “I’d like to see him die, like Ted Kennedy, of brain cancer.”

Anderson would like to see Obama die of natural causes, to be sure, but if Obama were to be assassinated, I suspect Anderson would not dislike that particular outcome either.   I wouldn’t be surprised if Anderson or one of his parishioners doesn’t turn out to be a doppelganger for John Wilkes Booth.

I think it’s pretty obvious this is not the religion of the gentle Savior.  It is not a theology of grace.  What Anderson’s theology represents is the theology of hate, the theology of the spiritual psychopath.  From this all Christians should turn away.

Vern

Real Health Care Reform

Sarah provides an easy to understand discussion of why tort reform is absolutely necessary before any health care reform can work.

http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin#/note.php?note_id=120607013434

Vern

Beyond Obama

Charles Kesler has a thoughtful discussion of the future of American conservatism:

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1644/article_detail.asp

At one point he says: “American conservatism stands or falls, however, by its allegiance to the American Revolution and Founding, even as modern liberalism really began, in the Progressive era, with a condemnation and rejection of America’s revolutionary and constitutional principles.”

I believe many Americans are now beginning to understand this.

Vern

The Death of Big Porn

See: http://mises.org/story/3668

Very instructive was the following comment: “Porn star Savannah Stern earned $150,000 two years ago, at the height of the boom, working four or five days a week. But Stern is now lucky to work one day a week, and has traded in her Mercedes-Benz CLK 350 for a Chevy Trailblazer given to her by her parents. While Stern hopes to earn some money dancing on the exotic-club circuit, she’s planning to go to college for an interior-design degree, the L.A. Times reports.”

I think the lure of porn or exotic dancing for many young women is the old idea of trying to get something for nothing.  The jobs of having (faked) sex on screen, or “dancing” for money, used to turn in big profits – and did so without requiring a great deal of talent, skill, or work.  All a girl needed was looks.  Now that has changed, and as Ms. Stern has learned, there’s nothing better than the old-fashioned thing we call education.

Vern

Shoshenq I

The “Centuries of Darkness” group has an interesting comment in their “Recent Developments” section:

http://www.centuries.co.uk/news.htm

“March 2009. A fascinating article has been published by Dr Rupert Chapman (British Museum), entitled “Putting Shoshenq I in His Place” in the Palestine Exploration Quarterly 141:1 (2009), pp. 4-17. Chapman presents a fresh analysis of a question that has intrigued archaeologists since 1926, when a fragment of a victory-stlea of Shoshenq I (founder of the Egyptian 22nd Dynasty) was found at the site of ancient Megiddo in Israel – it was found in the ‘dump’ from earlier excavations, but which stratum did it originally belong to? While reattributing such a find a century after it was discovered is fraught with difficulty, Chapman deduces that it was orginally set up in Stratum V, which by cross-dating with his work on the pottery of Samaria must have been a 9th-century BC level. He concludes: “On the basis of the purely stratigraphic argument set out above, it becomes clear that Sheshonq I and his expedition should also be dated to the 9th century BC.” Chapman’s paper is the first study (outside Centuries of Darkness) to argue from archaeological grounds that the conventional dating of Shoshenq I to the late 10th century BC is incorrect (see FAQ # 6 and #7).”

In terms of the New Courville perspective, the range of Megiddo level 5 is from 879 B.C. to 783 B.C. (i.e., 9th century to beginning of 8th century).  The stratum is Iron Age 2a.  In terms of our reconstruction, IA2a would be from Omri to Uzziah’s Earthquake, which covers the 9th century at the least.  (See our Iron Age 2 chart.)

Thus Chapman’s theory is consistent with New Courville’s placement in the archaeological record of Shoshenq 1 in relation to the biblical data.

Vern

Clunker Economics

Whether we’re maxing out our credit cards for bailouts, “stimulus,” or for Obamacare, it still has to be paid for.  For a critique of spending-our-way-to-prosperity economics, see:

http://mises.org/story/3624

Favorite quote: “When you stop doing economics and instead wander into mass psychology, anything goes.  In fact, throwing virgins into a volcano might boost GDP, depending on what the public believes.” — Robert P. Murphy

See also Doug French’s discussion of the harmful effects of inflationist policies:

http://mises.org/story/3616

Vern

The Return of Carterism

Many people are beginning to understand what’s wrong with welfare-state liberalism.  It costs money.  They look at the huge federal deficit, and the near-bankruptcy of California, and realize that we can’t just spend our way into prosperity.

Think of a guy who buys lots of stuff and looks to all the world like he’s prosperous.  Only he got that way by maxing out his credit card.  Is he really prosperous?  Most of us would say no, for no matter how little we may understand about economic theory, we do realize that when we max out a credit card, we have to pay it back someday.

When government spends money on bailouts and “stimulus” packages, it’s doing essentially the same thing — maxing out its credit card.  The day of reckoning has to come at some point.  We normally pay off our own cards by painful savings, or in worse cases, make use of credit counseling, or go bankrupt.

Government has two ways of paying off its credit card:  taxes or inflation.  Raising taxes is politically difficult, and a pretty stupid thing to do during a recession.  Taxes depress economic activity which is not the result you want during a recession.  Inflation has been the preferred way government pays off its debts — supported by an economic theory known as Keynesianism.

By inflation, government creates money out of thin air.  Things are economically valuable when they’re rare, and when they aren’t, they lose economic value.  Air is one of our most valuable resources, but it has no economic value.  Why?  Because it is too abundant.  (Pressurized oxygen is another matter.)  Nobody would pay anything for air in its native state.  Have you ever tried to sell air for a nickel?

Money is like that too.  If it’s rare it’s more valuable and if it’s not rare, it’s less valuable.  When government creates money out of thin air and pumps too much of it into the economy, each individual unit of money is less rare and therefore less valuable.  In practical terms, it means higher prices. 

Government has all too often been willing to use inflation as a way of paying off its maxed out credit card, but it’s as harmful to the economy as private counterfeiting is, or as harmful as enemy counterfeiting is during wartime. 

The problem with Keynesianism, or new Keynesianism, is that it believes in effect that you can create prosperity by maxing out your credit cards.  Think of all the wonderful things you can buy now!  Don’t worry about tomorrow.  In the long run, say the Keynesian inflationists, we’re all dead anyway.

If you say, how can I be prosperous if I’m up to my eyeballs in debt, inflationists will answer that “inflation is your friend.”  Since the money is worth less after inflation, your real debt is actually less than your nominal debt, the debt recorded in your books.

Isn’t that a way of robbing from lenders since they will be paid back in less valuable money?  Not to worry, we’ll just lend the lenders some more money.  And yes, it will seem like there’s prosperity all around because of all the lending and money that’s available.  But something deep down tells you it’s an illusion.

It’s an illusion because the money is actually worth less than it was before.  It’s only a nominal prosperity, so to speak, not a real one.  And nominal prosperity is what politicians love, since they can parcel the new money out to their favorite voting blocks.

These voting blocks are happiest because they get access to the new money before it loses its value, while later on old people or people on fixed incomes suffer the loss of their purchasing power.

Then when stagflation finally arrives, you are lectured by inflationists about a crisis of confidence, about losing faith, about worshipping self-indulgence and consumption, and about the need for windfall profits taxes and import restrictions, etc.

You see, it’s not government’s fault that we’re in this mess.  It’s our fault really, for we are the ones who have caused all this malaise.  At least that is what inflationists will tell you.

Recently, we’ve heard talk of a second stimulus bill.  But what would you think of a man if he decided to buy even more cool stuff by maxing out another credit card.  That’s essentially what we have with the idea of a second stimulus bill.

Perhaps the American people will someday realize that they need to think before they vote.

Vern

Against Obamacare

I like Ann Coulter’s point at the end of her article, which is offered as an alternative to Obamacare:  ”Give the poor and tough cases health stamps and let the rest of us buy health care — and health insurance — on the free market.”

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32831

This is what public interest liberalism tends to favor – some form of social amelioration for the poor and needy.  In other words, give those who are most in need some help.  Conservatives, except for those who are purists in their view of no state intervention, generally accept some form of public interest liberalism.   (The debate with liberals is over how much, not whether there should be state intervention.)

Unfortunately, too much of liberalism today is welfare-state liberalism, a version of socialism or even fascism — the takeover of whole industries by government.  The mistaken idea behind this liberalism is not amelioration but making everyone equal — not politically equal but materially equal.  This requires a massive redistribution of income.

This form of liberalism will ultimately fail, for the reason that Aristole pointed out long ago in his criticism of Plato’s socialism: it goes against man’s basic psychology.  Men want to keep the fruit of their labor, not have it taken away.  The more government takes money away from men, the less incentive they have to earn those extra dollars.  Eventually nobody wants to work, or put forth any effort.  Or they simply do enough to get by — and the economy shrinks and collapses.

But amelioration is piecemeal rather than systematic.  It is what could be called “modular.”  We solve one problem at a time.  We give food stamps to those who are hungry, health stamps to those who are sick, and muddle through as best we can, as each problem comes up.

No more big government programs!  Let’s think of piecemeal, modular programs, instead.

Vern

Metric System

I don’t have any problem with the metric system, but have you ever come across guys who go all snooty about it?  As if anyone who wanted to use feet, or inches, or yards, was akin to trailer park trash.  Here is a good corrective to such, what shall we call them, upper class metric twits? 

http://butler-harris.org/archives/126

Vern

Shaping Youth

Amy Jussel, a friend from my high school days, has an interesting blog critical of what she calls “classless marketing” and “pornification” – the increasing use of sexualized images in advertising, especially those directed to children and teenagers.  See:

http://www.shapingyouth.org/

Particularly bad is a Burger King ad showing a woman’s mouth open, and in front of it a hamburger suggestive of a phallic symbol, and the word “blow” in the advertising text.  Aside from the moral issue, it looks like it was thought up by college fraternity boys on a beer binge, not by professional advertisers.

In our free, capitalist system, there’s nothing wrong with the profit motive, but when profit is placed before ethics, it’s just plain ol’ greed — one of the seven deadly sins.  Shouldn’t we go back to the idea that corporations ought to uphold moral and ethical standards?  If they did that, they wouldn’t be allowing the frat boys to run their marketing departments.

Vern