I don't know where you get your delusions, laser brain.

I've been pondering the election and wondering why people vote the way they do.

It motivated me to delineate how MY political views were formed.  This may be an exercise solely for my benefit, but I'd be surprised if you didn't find it helpful to examine YOUR political leanings and trace back why they are the way they are.

As best I can tell, there are 4 main influences that have shaped my political perspective (and subsequent voting patterns).  I share them in chronological order:

1. Living in England during the Reagan Presidency

• I developed a deep sense of national loyalty to my country.
• During this "Cold War," I became keenly aware that there were many places in the world quite unlike the USA, some of which help a deep-seated hatred of the USA.
• Consequently, I've always been a fan of ensuring our national defense and military were top notch.

2. Reading the Bill of Rights

• I realized that we needed the first 2 amendments (i.e., freedom from government involvement in religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom to take up arms) as a grass roots form of checks and balances on the government itself.
• I realized the 10th amendment, contrary to what's transpired post-Civil War, put the vast majority of governing power in the hands of the individual states, not the federal government.

3. Reading Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative

• I gained an appreciation for smaller government, especially in the face of encroaching Socialism.
• I also realized that rather than ensure liberty, governments by nature tend to be the chief instrument to thwart it.
• I also solidified and developed some of the thoughts I'd stumbled upon in the Bill of Rights (e.g., States' Rights).
• FYI - HERE are some pertinent quotes from the book.

4. Converting to Christianity

• I became pro-life, and consequently anti-abortion, seeing it as the murder of one made in God's image, with this being my political issue which trumps all others in evaluating candidates/parties.
• I shifted my confidence to the triune God who controls (Prov 21:1) and raises up and takes down governments (Rom 13:1-7), rather than in government itself.
• Thus, I added prayer as one of the duties a citizen has toward his/her country.

Admittedly, I am biased, but I recommend each of these 4 to you. Also, I'd love to hear what has shaped your political leanings as well.

Don't compromise. Compromise is a language of the devil. Run in God's name and let the world stand back and in wonder.

Today marks the 150th anniversary of Captain George S. James sending the first mortar round through the air at Fort Sumter (SC). It was April 12, 1861. The Civil War was begun.

Abraham Lincoln was a polarizing figure, to say the least. On his agenda was dealing with a issue for which there really was no satisfactory compromise--slavery.

Were black folks afforded the same unalienable rights by the Creator?  That was the question.  The US government had answered in the negative for far too long and war was the means that moved the answer to the affirmative as they seemingly could come to no compromise on the issue. 

I wonder how we'd feel about a president who split the nation and effected the death of more than 600,000 Americans if it happened today. What issues are worth that much bloodshed? Was the liberation of the slaves worth the price?*

Suppose feelings about abortion were apportioned along geographical lines. How would we feel about a president whose conviction that pre-born babies are endowed by the Creator with the same unalienable rights as others moved him to drastic measures? Suppose the effects of that conviction led to a civil war and great bloodshed. Would their liberation be worth the price?

History has been kind to Lincoln, though it helps that his side was militarily successful. But, how would Americans 150 years later regard a president in our day who forced the issue on an issue for which there is no satisfactory compromise?

I honestly anticipate generations after us will see us as barbaric in our national lack of regard for the rights of those without a voice in our society, much as we view the proponents of slavery today.

*This question is not to minimize the sin of slavery, but there is an assumption by many that war was the only means of rectifying that national wrong.

A man's got to know his limitations.

Recently, I was called out for being male and being pro-life.

"... did i mention how creepy i find it when MEN are over-zealous pro'life' campaigners/preachers."

The implication was/is that a male had no business voicing anything with regard to abortion, since it's an issue (only) affecting women.

But ...

• I don't think you have to have children to be against child abuse.
• I don't think you have to have a pet to be concerned about the treatment of animals.
• I don't think you have to have a wife to be against spouse abuse.

And I don't think one has to have a uterus in order to enter the conversation about protecting human babies from violent death, though it probably doesn't hurt.

The good does not always triumph. Sometimes the dark side overcomes what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature.

Many may not aware of the Born Alive Protection Act and all that implies where Obama is concerned.

In a comment, Kasey wrote:

"I had planned to vote for Obama... until I saw a video of Gianna Jessen speaking about the Born Alive Infants Act. I had no idea that some infants who were to be aborted were actually born alive, and then thrown away to die. (See bornalivetruth.org.) Obama voted against Born Alive 4 times. My conscience won't allow me to vote for someone who thinks that's ok."

Gianna Jessen survived a botched abortion, but the issue is whether or not those infants born alive should receive medical assistance or be left to die or have their lives terminated. Here's a clip with Gianna on Hannity & Colmes (9/15/2008).


Kasey also recommends these 2 clips of Gianna's testimony found at
Radical Womanhood: Because being a biblical woman in a modern world is a radical act.




I encourage you to read the whole article, Abortion: The Strong Define the Rights of the Weak.

(See also BornAliveTruth.org, Barack Obama's record against the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act.)

Obviously, you're not a golfer.

I had previously addressed the topic of the number of children required to meet biblical expectations (Three Shall Be the Number Counted and the Number Counted Shall Be Three, April 3, 2006).

If you missed it, you may want to read it for context, but I thought I would respond to a comment made on that post last week, particularly since my view has changed somewhat.

The (9/10/2008) comment:

"I really hope that this entire blog was meant humorously and not to offer spiritual advice of any kind. The idea of "net increase" is especially bizarre. You gave no consideration to the fact that successive generations will also likely bear children, so increasing in number would be cumulative in nature. Even if parents had a only one child, there is an increase. Simple math proves that. 2+1=3

The whole golf analogy is just silly. A birdie is one less than par, not one more! You make it seem as though there are penalties and rewards based on the number of children a couple has."

My response ...

Well, my original post starts with:

"Previously, I posted my suspicion of the modernistic notion of quantification (These Go to Eleven), partially so that when I posted this diatribe it would be taken in a light-hearted manner. So, before the "sub-par" golfers try to throw me under the bus, you may want to read the aforementioned post.

Okay, with that caveat made ... let me have some fun with it."

That being said, I will interact with the above criticisms.

"You gave no consideration to the fact that successive generations will also likely bear children, so increasing in number would be cumulative in nature. Even if parents had a only one child, there is an increase. Simple math proves that. 2+1=3"

Actually, that's not so, per very simple math. Take 8 couples, each producing one child. 16 people just produced 8. Those 8 pair up and produce 4 kids. Those 4 pair up and produce 2 kids. Those 2 pair up and produce 1 child.

So, in "successive generations" of having only 1 child the population decreases dramatically, as is seen in the above example where the population went from 16 to 1 in just 4 generations.

"The whole golf analogy is just silly. A birdie is one less than par, not one more!"

Well, the golf analogy works because a birdie is ONE BETTER than par.

"You make it seem as though there are penalties and rewards based on the number of children a couple has."

It had been quite a while since I read this piece, but reading it again, I think that's either an unfair accusation or misunderstanding of the post.

The children are themselves the reward, according to the post and according to Scripture (e.g., Ps 127:3-5).

Continuing with the trend of seriousness, I would be interested in hearing a biblical argument in favor of being able to have many children, but choosing instead to have 0, 1 or 2. Or really, one might say to limit the number at all.

Since this post, I have actually become more convinced that even the church has bought into the cultural perception of children as things to be avoided or minimized lest they cramp our style.

This is often voiced as, "We can't afford X number of children."

But is that really true?

I'll close with this, if the biblical command is to “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.”, then the burden of proof lies on those taking measures to prevent that from happening.

I'm not saying the only legitimate reason to have woo-hoo is for procreation, but when people mock a mother who has a 5th child, considering her irresponsibile, the church should at least be ready to enter the conversation with the biblical value on children.

Remember, it's "Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them!" (Ps 127:5) and not cursed or punished.

You see ... abortion is a deceptive issue.

Today is Sanctity of Human Life Sunday.

In that regard, check out ProLife.com and here's some good stuff from John Piper:

15 Pro-Life Truths to Speak

"You will know the truth and the truth will set you free." - Jesus Christ

1. Existing fetal homicide laws make a man guilty of manslaughter if he kills the baby in a mother's womb (except in the case of abortion).
2. Fetal surgery is performed on babies in the womb to save them while another child the same age is being legally destroyed.
3. Babies can sometimes survive on their own at 23 or 24 weeks, but abortion is legal beyond this limit.
4. Living on its own is not the criterion of human personhood, as we know from the use of respirators and dialysis.
5. Size is irrelevant to human personhood, as we know from the difference between a one-week-old and a six-year-old.
6. Developed reasoning powers are not the criterion of personhood, as we know from the capacities of three-month-old babies.
7. Infants in the womb are human beings scientifically by virtue of their genetic make up.
8. Ultrasound has given a stunning window on the womb that shows the unborn at eight weeks sucking his thumb, recoiling from pricking, responding to sound. All the organs are present, the brain is functioning, the heart is pumping, the liver is making blood cells, the kidneys are cleaning fluids, and there is a fingerprint. Virtually all abortions happen later than this date.
9. Justice dictates that when two legitimate rights conflict, the limitation of rights that does the least harm is the most just. Bearing a child for adoption does less harm than killing him.
10. Justice dictates that when either of two people must be inconvenienced or hurt to alleviate their united predicament, the one who bore the greater responsibility for the predicament should bear more of the inconvenience or hurt to alleviate it.
11. Justice dictates that a person may not coerce harm on another person by threatening voluntary harm on themselves.
12. The outcast and the disadvantaged and exploited are to be cared for in a special way, especially those with no voice of their own.
13. What is happening in the womb is the unique person-nurturing work of God, who alone has the right to give and take life.
14. There are countless clinics that offer life and hope to both mother and child (and father and parents), with care of every kind lovingly provided by people who will meet every need they can.
15. Jesus Christ can forgive all sins, and will give all who trusts him the help they need to do everything that life requires.

We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline.

I recently read a challenging piece about the role of a pastor in the pro-life effort. His thesis is a response to the question, "What does a pro-life pastor looks like?"

In summary ...

“The pro-life pastor commits himself to four essential tasks. First, he preaches a biblical view of human value and applies that view to abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and cloning. Second, he equips his people to engage the culture with a persuasive defense of the pro-life view. Third, he restores lost passion for ministry with cross-centered preaching. Fourth, he confronts his own fears about preaching inconvenient truth.”

This came at a time wherein I've been asking a similar question, "What does a pro-life Christian look like?"

There's much talk about a 3rd party candidate because of fears the GOP might nominate a pro-choice candidate (namely, Rudy Guiliani). So, being pro-life is a topic of conversation once again, but this is normal leading up to an election.

Many are in fact self-described as "single issue voters," using a candidate's stance on abortion as the litmus test of whether or not to support him/her. This is particularly important with regard to the president, since it is the president who appoints judges and it is ultimately in the (Supreme) court where this battle will be won or lost.

But ... other than voting pro-life (i.e., voting for a candidate who purports to be pro-life), what do these people DO?

What does, or better yet, what should a pro-life Christian look like?

Is it more than just casting a vote every 4 years? I think so, especially since in many places the vote actually accomplishes nothing.

For example, someone who lives in Texas will (effectively) make no difference because the state will be a "Red State" and the pro-life Christian who cast such a vote actually accomplished nothing for the cause.

Now, that may sound harsh and I know about the "categorical imperative," but everybody doesn't think that way, so it doesn't negate the reality.

Let me state my point more directly: I think it ironic at best and pathetic at worst that so many make such a big deal about being pro-life (i.e., with regard to being anti-abortion) but actually DO nothing more than cast a vote.

It's easy to make fun of those who claim to be Christian but only actually go to church one or two times a year, right? But aren't the VAST MAJORITY of "pro-life Christians" only really so during an election?

What should a Christian do in keeping with his/her conviction of being pro-life? What should he/she not do?

We want to temper our zeal, for I'm not advocating doing violence or blowing up buildings, but there seems to me more than can/should be done than just clamoring for a pro-life candidate and then voting accordingly.

If you call yourself pro-life, what have you done to further the cause?

Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three.

Previously, I posted my suspicion of the modernistic notion of quantification (These Go to Eleven), partially so that when I posted this diatribe it would be taken in a light-hearted manner. So, before the "sub-par" golfers try to throw me under the bus, you may want to read the aforementioned post.

Okay, with that caveat made ... let me have some fun with it.

QUESTIONS:

• If you want to be a godly follower of the Lord Jesus, how many children should you have? As many as possible? None? As many as you can financially support?
  
• Is family size necessarily an indication of spirituality, a way to keep score, so to speak?
  

This is a topic of great discussion among Christians, but one typically done in the circles in which one already knows the environment. That is, those with large families get together and bash/belittle and carry on with regard to smaller ones and vice versa.

What do the Scriptures have to say about parenting and the number of children?

(Let me give what would have been obvious in the past, my assumptions. I'm assuming in this discussion biological children from a husband (male) & wife (female) legally married and all that good stuff.)

Biblically, God gave people a responsibility to populate the planet. In fact, you will note almost the exact same language, pre & post fall of Genesis 3. In other words, this wasn't merely an obligation prior to sin's entrance.

• In the beginning, after God “blessed them,” humanity was told to “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.” (Gen 1:28)
  
• Following the flood, after God “blessed” Noah & his sons, humanity was told to be “fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.” (Gen 9:1)

After each of the above, God commands dominion of the animal kingdom.

Increase … With two parents, two children would merely replace the parents and, of course not produce a net increase. Thus, it would seem to me that three would be the minimum for the above such commands to be carried out.

Let me put it like this for all of you golfers out there, though I’ll confess my ignorance of such a silly sport and its appeal. (Incidentally, I’ve been told that if I actually went I would enjoy it and probably be hooked, but I can assure you that one of the last things I need in my life is another hobby about which to obsess.)

Think of fulfillment of biblical obligation as par (i.e., what you should get or are supposed to get). So, God’s is a par three course (i.e., three kids). Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three.

If one has 4 kids, that is one better than par, that is, a birdie. 5 kids, consequently, would be an eagle (the extent of my golf knowledge in that direction). Conversely, to have only 2 kids would be one worse than par, that is, a bogey. One kid would be a double bogey and, I assume, zero kids would be a ... triple bogey?

Now, although my par theory of childbirth is somewhat lighthearted, on a serious note ...

I do want to issue the caveat that my game scenario assumes people are enabled to have children. A miscarriage is the death of your child, and should be mourned as such. God understands and knows who can and who cannot biologically produce offspring.

Those decisions lie with God, for He is the Lord of the womb and children are a blessing and heritage from Him (Ps 127:3-5). He opens and closes wombs as He sovereignly pleases for His purposes and good pleasure (cf. Deut 7:13-14; Ps 113:9; Gen 20:17-18; 25:21; 29:31; 30:22; Ex 1:21; Judges 13:2-3; Ruth 4:13; 1 Sam 1:5, 20; 2:21; 2 Sam 6:23; 2 Kings 4:14-17; Lk 1:7, 13).

I do find it interesting, however, that you don't typically see the patriarchs (particularly these two given the command, Adam & Noah) going crazy in the kids department. We're not really sure how many Adam had, but only three are listed by name. Noah apparently had three sons only - not all that impressive considering the length of his life. There's the obvious exception of Jacob, but that was with multiple moms.

At times I wonder if some interpret God's command to be such that Christians should have as many children as humanly possible. However, if so, you don't see anyone in Scripture who clearly set out to do that.

Interesting, eh? It's also interesting that Scripture does not look favorably on those who condescendingly condemn the barren woman. Now, we're not talking about those able, but unwilling to have children, for that's a different species. But, keep that in mind before you boast about your birdie or eagle and condemn the sub-par, for it may be more a situation of not being able versus not being willing.

Also, it would seem to me that in light of what transpires in the gestation, nursing, and raising of children that the men folk don't have near the latitude for boasting that they might think. In other words, I might suggest that the wives/moms are the true golfers and the husbands/daddys are more the caddies.

Anyway, thanks for enduring the back nine of speculation.

Gunny, eagle

Yeah, I do mind. The Dude minds.

Yeah, I do mind. The Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man.

Today is Sanctity of Human Life Sunday. I encourage you to prayerfully consider how you might be involved in efforts to stem the tide of legalized murder in our country due to abortion.

At church today we distributed, to those so inclined, "little feet" pins and Baby Bottles for Life. The feet are the exact size and shape of a baby's feet 10 weeks after conception are are prominently displayed as the internation pro-life symbol.

Our Baby Bottles for Life are recepticles for monetary contributions, the proceeds of which go to support Real Options for Women, a local (Christian) crisis pregnancy center.

There's is much that can be done as we prayerfully speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. May God's people rise up to take a stand against this aggression.