Out the Door

A response to those who break covenant

This morning I had my annual interview with my DS. As part of the process, he handed me a sheet of paper titled, "Our Covenant Relationship." It begins by stating,

We as Ministry Professionals recognize and affirm the covenantal relationship we have with each other in the Iowa Annual Conference, the obligations we have to God, the people we serve, the world at large, exemplifying and maintaining the highest standards of Christian conduct as set forth in the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church. Within that covenant, we understand and agree that each of us shall have...

The document goes on to list personal, parish, and pastoral responsibilities. The very second statement under Personal Responibility says, "Abide by the covenant and The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church."

United Methodist clergy whether they are in Iowa or some other corner of the world are bound together by a shared covenant. Sadly, there are some who have decided that this covenant doesn't apply to them. This is exactly what about 900 pastors have said by signing a letter declaring they would perform same-sex marriages in violation of The Book of Discipline. What do faithful people do in the face of this direct attack upon our covenantal relationship? You do the one thing you can do and call upon the leaders of the church in the form of the Council of Bishops to hold those who break covenant accountable.

This is what 59 pastors from around the country have done. Since they first expressed their dismay over this pledge to disregard The Book of Discipline and abandon our covenant, thousands of United Methodists have joined their voices calling on the Bishops to fulfill their responsibility of upholding our covenant. You can too by joining the 10,000 clergy and laity who have signed their letter.

Caring for the Poor: The Christian's Responsibility

Daniel Burke in a recent articlefor UMNS detailed some criticism of U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (Rep) for saying that he is a fan of Ayn Rand.

The atheist philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand published more than a dozen books before she died in 1982. Now, liberal Christians say another work belongs in Rand’s controversial canon: the 2012 Republican budget. 

House Republicans passed their budget along party lines in April, saying its drastic cuts to federal programs are necessary to prevent a deficit crisis. 

But in a petition drive, video, ads and websites, liberal Christians counter that Rand’s dog-eat-dog philosophy is the real inspiration for the GOP budget and its author, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis. 

While I don't endorse Rand's anti-religion, atheistic views to equate them with the U.S. budget is a mighty long stretch.

Toward the end of the article Burke quotes Rand's biographer Anne Heller:

“Certainly you can believe that the state can’t do everything for everybody, but if you are a practicing Christian, you also believe that it is our duty to take care of the least among us.  And we know perfectly well from history that churches and individuals can’t do that job alone.”

Heller is absolutely correct that it is our duty as Christians to care for the least among us.  But implying that churches and individuals can't do it without governmental help is purely conjecture.  At no time in history have churches and individual faithfully fulfilled their duties to the poor.  Until that happens, no one can say that it can't be done without involving a secular government. 

While Heller's conclusions are speculative, it is true that because churches and individuals haven't been obedient to the commands of God that millions of people suffer.  But rather than passing the buck and saying that it's the government who must take care of the least of these, Christian should start taking personal responsibility and doing their part.  Until that happens Christians have no right to criticize a politician or a political party for not doing what they themselves have failed to do.

Federal Judge Voids the First Amendment

Chief U.S. District Judge Fred Biery has ruled one student's practice of the First Amendment to be a violation of another student's right not to be offended. (Fox News, Christian Post reports) In a case involving Medina Valley High School in Castroville, TX, Biery forbid students from using the words "amen," "bow your heads," "in Jesus' name," and other religious expressions during their commencement speeches.

While I don't support school sponsored prayer, when a judge goes so far as stating that students in their personal comments can't use certain words, the First Amendment right to freedom of speech has become meaningless. Unlike Texas Attoney General Gregg Abbott who stated that, "Part of this [ruling] goes to the very heart of the unraveling of moral values in the country today," I don't believe it has much to do with declining moral values. It has everything to do with an individual having the right to express their beliefs and opinions without interference of the government. Just because someone finds another person's comments offensive that is no reason to strip that individual of the right to state those beliefs and opinions.

Score One for the Constitution

I have to admit that I don't have much faith in the American judicial system.  Activist judges have too often made it a practice to legislate from the bench, forgetting that our constitution was setup to ensure a separation of powers.

But today some of my faith has been restored.  Judge Roger Vinson ruled today that Obama's healthcare reform bill is unconstitutional.  He said in his ruling:

"I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without  power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one-sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case.  The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here."

"While the individual mandate was clearly 'necessary and essential' to the act as drafted, it is not 'necessary and essential' to health care reform in general.  Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

The only thing I don't understand is why he "reluctantly" made his ruling.  Why would anyone who believes in individual freedom be reluctant to say that Congress forcing individuals to purchase a marketed product is unconstitutional?  This was an outright assault on personal liberty and should never have been passed.  Judge Vinson, as well as the governors and state attorney generals who brought the suit are to be commended for their commitment to our constitution.

Hopefully, this ruling will provide Congress with the incentive to revisit the issue of healthcare reform.  Without a doubt something needs to be done to ensure that all Americans who want it have access to healthcare.  But there must be a way of doing this without stealing away people'sfreedom to control their own lives.

Arizona tragedy shows the uselessness of resolutions

In the days since Jared Loughner opened fire on a crowd at an Arizona Safeway, United Methodists have been reminded repeatedly that we "officially" oppose gun violence.  According a UM News Report:

Delegates at the United Methodist Church’s 2008 General Conference passed a resolution on gun violence that states: “The need to prevent the incidence of firearm-related injury and death is an issue of increasing concern and a priority public health issue. The United Methodist Church is among those religious communities calling for social policies and personal lifestyles that bring an end to senseless gun violence.” 

Is there anyone naive enough to believe that because the General Conference passed this resolution there is less gun violence in the world?  But United Methodists everywhere can stand tall because our elected delegates approved a statement in opposition to violence. (read sarcasitically)

This tragedy is another proof that resolutions are not worth the paper their printed on.  Paper which by the way comes from trees that other resolutions vow to protect.

If United Methodists invested the time, energy and expense that are used to pass resolutions in real ministry we could change the world.  Maybe we even could have reached a disturbed young man with the love of Christ.  Now that would be useful.

Confusion reigns

Two articles in this week's addition of UM Reporter demonstrate the confusion that racks the UMC.  One was an interview with Leonard Sweet about his new book, Jesus Manifesto.  The other about the University Senate reinstating Claremont Seminary to full status as a United Methodist accredited school for educating UM pastors.

The title of the articles highlights the confusion I'm referring to.  The former is titled, Q&A: Restoring the supremacy of Jesus, while the latter is Claremont’s religious diversity: Church affirms multi-faith project. 

Sweet along with his co-author Frank Viola subtitle their book, "It's time to restore the supremacy of Jesus Christ."  Claremont on the other hand, thinks that Jesus Christ is probably good thing for Christians to believe in, but is equal not supreme to the beliefs of Jews and Muslims.  Sadly, the University Senate thinks that's ok and are giving the school nearly a million dollars in order to teach it to UM pastors.

I read about this kind of confusion and the rejection of the supremacy of Jesus by the UM hierarchy and I wonder why it is that these same people can't understand why people in local churches don't want to see their contributions used to pay apportionments.  It's pretty clear to me.

If we want our churches to grow and to support the work of our denomination, then we had better figure out what our message is.  It it about Jesus or is it about gathering everyone together and singing "Kum ba yah" where each person gets to decide which lord they want to come by.

General Board of Church & Society once again proves it is out of touch with most United Methodists

By throwing their support behind Obamacare, the General Board of Church & Society once again demonstrated that its leftwing political agenda is out of touch with most United Methodists.  Of the United Methodists who serve in the House of Representatives more voted against the government's takeover of the healthcare system in America than voted for it (26-No, 18-Yes).

Having Nancy Pelosi single out the UM GBCS as an organization who helped pass the bill hurts the United Methodist Church.  Who needs the praise of someone as unpopular as Pelosi?  It is stunts like this that drive people away from the UMC and makes many of us who remain less inclined to want to pay our apportionments since they are used to promote socialism and to enslave our children and grandchildren with an unsustainable national debt.  Anyone who thinks that this bill will actually lower the national debt is naive.  Show me one governmental welfare program that hasn't exceeded its projected costs by millions if not billions of dollars.  It can't be done.  Why would anyone think that this bill will be an exception to a 70 year track record?

Hopefully, one day the General Conference will wise up to the destruction that the GBCS is causing to the UMC and will abolish it once and for all.

Really Freaked Out by Children Singing Obama's Praise

By now most everyone has seen or heard about the New Jersey school children singing praises to President Obama.  If you haven't here's one of several that are on-line.

This video freaks me out to the point I am about lost for words.  I remember growing up and seeing pictures of school children in communist countries singing songs to their leaders.  This is the stuff of dictatorships and atheistic tyrannts.  If these children were singing about Castro, or Stalin, or Saddam Hussien, I could see that happening.  I would expect nothing less from these types of dictators.  Yet here are American school children singing, "Mr. President, we honor you.  Mr. President, you're number one." 

Now I'm all for honoring our president regardless who it is.  But when little children who have no choice are coerced into singing about how great a man the president is goes way beyond honoring the office.

What is our nation coming to when children can sing songs to the president to the tune of "Jesus Love the Little Children," and can't sing the original words to that same song because it speaks of Jesus?  President Obama should speak out and say while he's honored by the gesture, we are one nation under God and not one nation under the president.  Of course, that's not going to happen so this attack upon the freedom of thought which is central to our country's way of life will go unchallenged by anyone in a position of authority.

Healthcare Reform will fund abortions

There can be little doubt that in the Democratic's version of healthcare reform that abortions will be fully funded through the governmental plan. Millions of pro-life Americans will be forced by their government to pay for the killing of children.

While the word "abortion" appears nowhere within the bill which is now before Congress, the language of the legislation speaks of "all necessary medical procedures." For pro-abortion advoates who dominate the ruling Democratic Party, abortion is a necessary medical procedure.

A coalition of pro-life groups have banded together to fight this expansion of abortion. They are running an ad informing the public of the implication of the healthcare reform bill. Below are a CBN report about the commerical and the commerical itself.  Make sure to check out the Stop The Abortion Mandate website.

Healthcare Reform Questions

There's been so much said and written about the healthcare reform and the governmental takeover on 1/6th of the US economy that I have been hesitant to add my voice.  However, as I have listen to the debate, I have some questions I would like answered.

1.  Whose responsibility is it to provide for the healthcare of the citizens of the United States?

I find nowhere in the Bible where the government is given the responsibility to provide healthcare for anyone.  To use the Old Testament prophets words to Israel justify governmental intervention distorts them.  The USA cannot be equated to ancient Israel.  In the same manner, Jesus' words which command us to care for the sick are not addressed to a governmental body, but rather to His body, the Church.  It's time for the Church to be the Church and to quit relying on the government to do the work to which the Church is called. 

There are approximately 225 million Americans who claim to be Christian, median person income is about $32,000.  Thus if every Christian gave a tithe of their income the amount with which the Church could do ministry would be $720 billion.  If only a quarter of that amount was used to provide for the healthcare of the 46 million Americans who don't have insurance, that means each uninsured person would receive about $3,900.  The average per person cost for health insurance is $3,250.  Problem solved!  And it didn't require governmental intervention, rather it required that those who call themselves by the name of Jesus Christ are faithful to the commands of scripture.

2.  If the governmental plan is so good, why has Congress exempted themselves from it?

The fact that the healthcare reform bill impacts the lives of every American except those in Congress is elitist.  Obviously, those in Congress who support this bill really don't think it is really going to help the people who are forced into the program.  Why else would they exempt themselves?

3.  To think that the governmental healthcare plan can be put into place without increasing the national debt is naive.  How much debt are we going to place on the backs of our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren before it will be more than they can possibly carry?

Presently, the government is spending 185% of its income.  In other words, in order to balance the budget taxes would need to be about doubled or spending cut in half.  Since the healthcare plan increases spending by upward of a trillion dollars, the only option is to more than double people's tax burden or else lay it on the backs of future generations.  Since future generations don't vote, it's not hard to figure out what the politicians will do.  When is enough, enough?