Monday
Jul272009
More Irresponsible Behavior from Our Congress
Monday, July 27, 2009 at 11:15AM While speaking at the National Press Club luncheon, Democratic Congressman John Conyers(D-Mich.), who is also the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, mocks the need to read bills before voting on them, because it takes two lawyers to interpret them and more than two days to work through them! And this from the chair of the Judiciary Committee????
Since chairman Conyers will not be subject to the same health care reforms my family will be (the congress will retain all their current gold-package health care benefits regardless of what bill ultimately makes its way through congress), I guess there's no need for him to even know what is in the bill.
This is infuriating.
Reader Comments (108)
That is quite a generalization.
All the more reason for Christians to be in the public square.
I know you're giving me the cold shoulder, so let me respond more generally. First, while I think I understand it, and at the risk of sounding picky, I wouldn't say that Lloyd's paraphrase of me of quite accurate. I wouldn't say that "Amereica breeds immorality." Rather, I'm trying to be more skeptical than cynical, which is to say, I think we should be much more realistic about just what our republic is capable of doing. Views like Bill's seem way to quick to dismiss realities in the service of propping up our nationalistic pride, self- and works-righteousness. The patriotism of affirmation stands in need of the gospel.
Second, I'm not sure what good more of me (i.e. Christians) will do the public square. We are sinners, thus just as much a part of the problem as anyone else. I think those who should be in the public square should be good at it or at least qualified. Spiritually alive or dead is completely irrelevant to whether one can do a certain earthly thing well. My Hindi and Mormon neighbors are at least as good at temporal things as my Calvinist brethren. Meeting me at the communion table is another matter entirely.
We should never mix the two kingdoms. As each has its own separate role in Christ's Kingly office as He rules the universe and His church upon His ascension to the right hand of the Father.
In His prophetic office, He proclaims the judgment and the good news from the Father. It is also a teaching office.
In our great Lord Christ's Priestly office, He is the final and perfect sacrifice, which ends all other sacrifices. He also intercedes on behalf of His elect, in His role as mediator!
I love these categories!
I greatly admire and highy esteem your opinions on everything. All of us on your website feel the same way.
You don't have to take sides on what is happening in America today. But, what is your opinion of the current situation in America? Is this a cyclical situation, or is the government getting so big and powerful, that we are digging ourselves a hole that we may never climb out of? Are we in jeopardy of losing much of the freedom that has made America such a great nation?
Blessings.
You know where I stand on these things . . .
I am a capitalist down to my gills. I favor limited federal government and states rights. I am second amendment guy, and cannot understand those among us who don't get gun ownership and the freedom it symbolizes. Providing and protecting are part of my duty as a Christian husband and father.
So, I am less than thrilled by the current administration--although I didn't like the last one very much either. Unemployment is starting to hit members of our church hard, and people are genuinely afraid of what their future holds. This is a great chance to point them to the unshakable kingdom in our midst. But it is hard to see people whom you love really suffering because the idiots in the Beltway don't get the fact that Keynesian socialism has never once brought anything but high taxation, inflation, and unemployment. Stupidity is not a sin, however.
While most two-kingdom advocates who read this blog are spot on when it comes to calling out Christians who confuse or blur the line between the two kingdoms, they seem oblivious to the dangers posed by the state. I am a bit dismayed that several frequent posters here have an incredibly naive attitude about the dangers of the increasing power of the federal government. Government is not benign. It is not your friend.
Government is a common grace institution designed to keep the peace and protect its citizens. But it is a fallen institution (a necessary evil), made up of sinful people, who will be pulled to justify their existence by extending their power. That same empire Paul called a minister of God (Romans 13), is the God-hating beast of Revelation 13. The worst biblical bad guys are Pharaoh, Herod, Nero, etc., who used the power and prestige of the state in a futile attempt to thwart the advance of God's kingdom. This should be an object lesson to us, but some just don't get it.
Peter was pretty clear about this--we must obey God rather than man. It will be interesting to see what happens if and when Obama-care advocates senior-citizen eugenics and includes federal funding mandates for abortion. Is peaceful civil disobedience even an option for such people? It certainly is for me.
You made great points. I am in agreement with everything in your reply.
I also would encourage my fellow Riddlebloggers to check out the platform of the Libertarian party. I have read their platform twice already, and while not perfect, it is far better than what the other two parties are offering us. Their platform regarding the economy, is just what this country needs at this time.
While the Republicans are the lesser of two evils, my wife and I are switching to the Libertarian Party.
Pastor Kim, we have a great sporting goods store here in the Phoenix area, you and your sons would love it -- Cabela's. They have a great collection of guns and rifles!
Clearly, we’re 2Kers who disagree about some things, which only goes to show the superiority and durability of 2K.
Even so, doesn’t Acts 5:29 (We must obey God instead of men) have to be read in light verse 30 (The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree)? It seems to me Acts 5:29-30 is commanding us to be cultically disobedient, not civilly disobedient. What the apostles were countering wasn’t some aspect of civil polity but cultic falsehood.
There are all sorts of categories and commands for cultic disobedience. But especially in light of something like Mark 12 and Romans 13, I really don’t see any NT data that civil disobedience is a virtue at all but, in point of fact, something of a vice. It’s certainly a highly esteemed American virtue. But it appears that to be civilly disobedient is quite at odds with what it means to live like pilgrims, minding our own business and seeking the peace of the city. Don’t you think there is a principled difference between civil disagreement and civil disobedience?
I would take Acts 5:29 & 30, to refer to someone in a position of power attempting to stop the kingdom of God from advancing. In that case, we must obey God rather than man, in our attempt to keep advancing the kingdom of God.
Another example, in applying a doctrine taught here, would be if your employer told you that you could no longer attend church while working for them. In that case, you would obey God, rather than man. Anytime, someone tells us to do something against the Word of God, we must obey God rather than man.
Some of this is historical narrative, with an application of doctrine, thus establishing God's order of obedience. (This would not apply to the freedom that we have in the kingdom of man -- example; politics.)
One of the main problems that Christians have, is trying to apply Scriptures to social or political situations -- hence we have confusion of the role of the two kingdoms.
One thing that we have to guard against, is trying to build entire doctrines on historical narritive.
We have the right to fight like hell in the social and politcal realms, as long as we do not violate the principles of God's Word. The Bible, as long as we keep the kingdom of God separate from the kingdom of man, gives us this freedom!
Keep protesting, both Luther and Calvin did it! Luther slaughterd Erasmus because he was not only wrong but also a wimp!
Re Acts 5:29-30, pretty much my take as well.
I suppose I would further say that the command to be (cultically) obedient to God versus men also means that we not only disobey civil authorities who anatagonize our faith, but also those who have little to no authority over us. Thus, we oppose kings, bosses, parents (for some of us, husbands) but also friends, relatives, co-workers, children (and for some of us, wives). Moreover, when the sheriif breaks up our home Bible study, my view on how to disobey is to go underground (as in catacombs) instead of hire a lawyer.
Yet, my other point here is that I see no NT allowance for anything remotely close to being civilly disobedient. Luther said the revolting peasants were out of line, and I think he was right. I think American Christians presume that there is a way to be legitmately disobedient, as in "civil" meaning "lawful, non-violent/peaceful, polite, etc." But disobedience is disobedience no matter how gussied up. I may be "incredibly naive" and "oblivious," but I find it more than a little disquieting that anyone here would encourage civil disobedience. Cultic disobedience, no problem, but civil? Wow.
Pat T.,
Methinks you're not up to the conversation, but more importantly, plain no fun.
I'm no fan of the whiney "culture of the offended," but I'm even less interested in conversations that devolve into ad hominem.
"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."
Anything fishy around here lately?
I agree with you about ending debate at some point, when it is clear the other side just wants to argue without a sincerity that's needed to make such conversations profitable.
Your reaction to the WH post is pretty disingenuous. The post rightly or wrongly wants to respond to rumors on the internet. You read this as a nefarious plot to secure people's email addresses. Let's get real here and deal with real issues, not caricature fantasies. BTW this is not a reflection on my views on helath insurance reform. But I am tired of bogey men and straw men being erected left and right just so we can all claim that the sky is falling or cry out like the monty pythion peasant "help I am being oppressed."