politics
- How will this issue affect the poor?
- How will this issue affect our ability to freely share the gospel?
- it’s a global marketplace, so the amount of oil we import vs the amount of oil we produce doesn’t affect the price - only the global quantity on the market affects the price
- it wouldn’t be wise to totally cut ourselves off from the foriegn oil market, because a limited domestic production is easier for terrorists to strike than a distributed (global) production.
Dr. John Stackhouse on Christians' Political Concerns
Dr. John Stackhouse of Regent College in Vancouver, BC, is in Cedar Rapids this weekend speaking. He’ll be at Coe College tonight, First Lutheran Church tomorrow night, and then at Noelridge and First Lutheran on Sunday morning. (Visit recminusa.org for more details.)
I got to meet him at lunch today. I was invited to a regular lunch meeting that my pastor has with some musician-types each Thursday, and Dr. Stackhouse was invited to join us all for lunch. He is a fascinating man; seeming to be equally conversant in music, politics, religion, and philosophy, he bantered with the group all the while engaging us in some serious thought.
At one point the discussion turned to politics, and one of the regulars was lamenting that so many people have started to view politics as single-issues; they’ll make their voting decision based strictly on a candidate’s view on, say, abortion, or gay rights. It’s frustrating to those of us who think there are multiple issues that are important. Dr. Stackhouse agreed that it is very difficult; in reality there may be 30 or 40 issues that a thinking person could be versed on, and vote around. What he suggested, though, was that pastors and other leaders should encourage their people to think around a rather short list, perhaps five or six issues that as Christians we should care about.
He only listed two for us:
He suggested that there might be just a few more. What do you think? Is this a reasonable framework around which to decide how votes will be cast? What items would you add to the list?
Mitt Happens
I met Mitt Romney yesterday. Well, if you can consider shaking his hand and saying hello “meeting” him. Mr. Romney is the governor of Massachusetts and a probable candidate for President in 2008. As with all presidential campaigns, the early path has to run through Iowa. And so Governor Romney found his way to Cedar Rapids to give the commencement address at Coe College on Sunday and then meet with various political groups yesterday. One of the groups he was meeting was our Christian Action group here in Linn County. Since the head of that group is also one of our elders at Noelridge, they held the meeting there at our little church. So for half an hour or so, I sat back and ran sound while Governor Romney answered questions brought by our local people.
I have a difficult time trying not to be cynical about politicians. Now, of course, Romney will tell you he’s not a politician. But he sure comes across as one. Besides the perfectly-styled hair, the booming voice, the picture-perfect blonde wife who gushes about their family, well, there’s something in the performance, too. I was pretty impressed, he was doing a pretty good job at what was, I imagine, his usual 5-minute introductory speech. But then he introduced his wife, and she came up and said a few things about their children and grandchildren. OK, nice so far. But then she says how she knows people have been saying a lot of nice things about her husband, but how she knows that the most important things to him are his family. Now that statement by itself is just fine. But as she says the phrase “people have been saying a lot of nice things about my husband”, the Governor emits far too loud a chuckle and an obvious “aw shucks” kind of look. It was so obviously rehearsed that it was painful. And from there on out, the cynicism kicked in. He was just another politician performing.
I suppose the American system is just so big now that it’s unreasonable to think that a “normal guy” could be elected president; so, instead of electing the best “normal guy”, we have to elect the best politician. But back in my heart somewhere I wish a really real normal guy could make it. I know I’m not the only one who feels that way - go read Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan series. He propels his “normal guy” hero on a path from history teacher and CIA consultant all the way up to POTUS. And of course then Clancy lets him give all the conservative speeches that Clancy (not-so-)secretly wishes a real POTUS would give. So the dream is alive… just unlikely.
So now we’re back to Mr. Romney. It will be interesting to see how his (as of yet unannounced) candidacy goes. His success will largely depend on who decides to run against him. I will also be curious to see if his Mormon beliefs hurt him any. I tend to think that the religious right will look past it. Oh, are we really starting the presidential election cycle already? The season in Iowa seems eternal. I guess we still have one more year of relative peace.
"A Separate Peace"
Peggy Noonan writes a somber column today. An excerpt:
I think there is an unspoken subtext in our national political culture right now. In fact I think it’s a subtext to our society. I think that a lot of people are carrying around in their heads, unarticulated and even in some cases unnoticed, a sense that the wheels are coming off the trolley and the trolley off the tracks. That in some deep and fundamental way things have broken down and can’t be fixed, or won’t be fixed any time soon. That our pollsters are preoccupied with “right track” and “wrong track” but missing the number of people who think the answer to “How are things going in America?” is “Off the tracks and hurtling forward, toward an unknown destination.”
I’m not talking about “Plamegate.” As I write no indictments have come up. I’m not talking about “Miers.” I mean . . . the whole ball of wax. Everything. Cloning, nuts with nukes, epidemics; the growing knowledge that there’s no such thing as homeland security; the fact that we’re leaving our kids with a bill no one can pay. A sense of unreality in our courts so deep that they think they can seize grandma’s house to build a strip mall; our media institutions imploding–the spectacle of a great American newspaper, the New York Times, hurtling off its own tracks, as did CBS. The fear of parents that their children will wind up disturbed, and their souls actually imperiled, by the popular culture in which we are raising them. Senators who seem owned by someone, actually owned, by an interest group or a financial entity. Great churches that have lost all sense of mission, and all authority. Do you have confidence in the CIA? The FBI? I didn’t think so.
But this recounting doesn’t quite get me to what I mean. I mean I believe there’s a general and amorphous sense that things are broken and tough history is coming.
She uses the rest of the column to note that the “elites” who ought to be leading us out of this have instead made “a separate peace” and, rather than lead, have resigned themselves to doing what they want to do and just letting the thing derail.
It’s worth reading the piece just for its thought-provoking capacity. But then step back, take a deep breath, and give thanks for a Heavenly Father who is sovereign over all these events.
"energy dependence"
Another day, another NRO column to comment on. Today it’s Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren arguing on the “myths” of energy independence. They have some interesting views on the subject, noting that:
and,
Now, they’re good libertarians from the Cato Institute, so their answer is to quit subsidizing the fuel situation, and just let the free market play itself out. I’m not so sure I agree with this; part of me would like to see a “Manhattan Project”-style effort to develop a usable alternative fuel system. But their comments about the global oil market make the article worth a read.
Foolish?
“God assumed from the beginning that the wise of the world would view Christians as fools … and He has not been disappointed.”
This insight was voiced by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently while addressing a Knights of Columbus gathering. Scalia is a staunch Catholic, and while I won’t agree with all of his religious beliefs as part of the Roman Catholic church, he has this one exactly right. Paul wrote about this in First Corinthians chapter 1:
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.
As Christians, we are constantly told by the world today that we are stupid for believing what we do.
Aren’t you smart enough to know that evolution is the way it happened and that creation is a myth? Are you so stupid as to believe that there is a God who is all-powerful? Have you yet to gain the understanding that we are the ultimate arbiters of what is moral? Come on, how stupid can you be?
At times I find it disheartening; at times only frustrating When I gain the correct perspective, then I can finally look past the insults and criticism to realize that I have a knowledge (through no merit of my own) that they don’t have, and regardless of how they ridicule me, it is still my duty to proclaim what I know to be true.
I look at it this way: if I were walking by somebody’s house and saw it burning, they’d want me to come tell them so they could escape. But what if I was walking by and somehow knew, without a shadow of a doubt, that their house was burning, even though they didn’t understand why. Wouldn’t I still have the moral imperative to tell them? If this were the case I would also be trying anything in my control to try to help them to understand how I knew.
In the case of my beliefs, they won’t be able to understand unless the Spirit enables them to respond to the message. However, I still have the moral imperative (and the command from God) to keep speaking the message, even if I am called a fool for saying it.
Here’s where I have to do some self-evaluation. I generally don’t like to be thought a fool. (Who does?) While I’m not willing to go change my beliefs so people won’t think I’m stupid, I too often keep my mouth shut when I really shouldn’t… thus providing the impression that I’m not a fool, when if I told them what I believed, they’d think I was. I think I need to open my mouth more. I’ll have to pray for the boldness to do it.
Scalia again:
“If I have brought any message today, it is this: Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity. Be fools for Christ. And have the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world.”
Consider yourself challenged. I know I am.
it's over....
To quote John Derbyshire, YEEEEEEEE-HAAAAAAAAA!
The election is over. Kerry conceded without putting up a big fight. No big lawsuits. No big charges of voting fraud. Tom Daschle got beat in South Dakota. (My respect for South Dakotans just went up by a couple orders of magnitude.) The Republicans picked up more seats in the Senate and the House. Things look like they might just calm down politically for a while… at least until some seats on the Supreme Court open up, then they’ll be back to the old tricks.
I would be much remiss if I didn’t at least mention a nice statistical analysis that a guy I’m familiar with (he runs the Caedmon’s Call fan website) posted on his blog last night in the middle of the Ohio discussion… way to go, Geof!
Death by Advertising...
Well it’s the day before the national elections and living in Iowa that means we’re finally near the end of interminable political advertising, phone calls, and print ads. In the last week I think we’ve received 3 or 4 recorded phone calls, tons of mail every day, three people at the door, and endured more TV ads than anyone should have to watch. I’m not much of a channel surfer, but I finally started flipping around just to avoid having to watch the same ads over and over and over…
While it saddens me that the presidential candidates can’t seem to campaign on anything but “here’s why my opponent’s bad”, I guess I’ve come to expect it. What really makes me mad is that the same mudslinging comes to the local races. In my Iowa House district, we’ve recieved at least half a dozen mailings, including ones from Roger Grobstich, the challenger, totally bashing Kraig Paulsen, the incumbent (a Republican), and also one that was a “copy” of a handwritten letter from Paulsen’s wife, urging us to vote for him. Why can’t they just run on the issues? Are there not enough issues to run on? In Iowa, we’ve got education, government spending, and taxes, just to name a few. Tell me whether or not you’re going to raise my taxes (honestly, now), where you stand on gambling, the lottery, the speed limits, things I really care about. Sure, your website has little niceities on all these issues, but why can’t you run on them? Why do you have to sling mud and badmouth? Do you really think I’m going to respond to a mailing that tells me that my representative is a shill for corporate interests? I work for a corporate interest. That means I’m interested in their business doing well. Big business isn’t evil to me - it keeps food on the table.
At least tomorrow it will all be over… oh wait, then there will be legal wranglings, lawsuits, protests, recounts, and allegations of fraud. My prayer is just that somebody be a clear winner on Tuesday; I don’t think I can handle a repeat of the 2000 debacle.
I’m Chris Hubbs, and I approve this message.