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)
This is a slippery slope.......
I thought you were out. But as long as you are here, and speaking of Bill's comments, when Herod had all the babies killed was that a problem because babies have a "right to life" or because Herod was trying to thwart the plan of God to save his people? The Scripture seems to suggest there are not two answers to this but only that the latter is correct.
These issues that I am bringing up have nothing at all to do with which side that God is on regarding issues like healthcare etc. It is not an issue of which position is more righteous than the other one.
And, you'll notice how careful I am in leaving God out of this mess. (Except for my joke about gun carrying Christians.)
I have spoken many times before that when someone attempts to drag God's name into the social arena, I am quick to correct them and to tell them to leave God's name out of it.
The Bible has nothing to say about Obama's socialist healthcare plan, or the other proposal's of a free market system. So, we really don't know if Obama's plan is better in God's eyes than the Libertarian plan. The Bible is silent, so must we when trying to attach God's name to either plan.
This, my friends, is the beauty of the two kingdom system. I can fight like crazy for my position of wanting to retain the freedom in our country, because in the kingdom of man, I keep God's name out of it. (You both know that I do not dare drag God's name into it.)
If I lived in a country with persecution, and we had to conduct our church underground -- okay, it is the will of God to do so, and we should rejoice in this opportunity.
However, we don't live in that type of country -- at least not yet. So, as a citizen in the kingdom of man, I fight to make this a better world, for me and my neighbor.
Your particular positions in the kingdom of man, are very similar to people that I talk to at Calvary Chapel type churches. You know what these folks say? "It's all going to burn anyway, so what do I care?" These folks are doing nothing in the kingdom of man, "because it's all going to burn anyway."
Most of the Lutherans and the Reformed folks that I know, do not see their particular roles as citizens in the "kindom of man", in such a complacent, lackadaisical way.
Do you gentlemen have any opinions on these social issues that are in discussion, and how they can be fixed? Or will it just be a very uncharacteristic -- at least in the Reformed and Lutheran circles, of "Oh well, crap happens?"
Simply because one exercises a measure of restraint and perspective doesn't mean one is apathetic, nor does it mean one is a stow-the-polish-Dispensationalist. The "you don't care like me therefore you don't care" device may be popular with wives, but it's really unbecoming confessional Prot's.
Since I think I'm about as 2K as they come, I'm also not much for a macho 2K contest. So far, for a Lutheran, you've done a fair amount of cyber-screaming about things pertaining to the KoM. If it was the KoG, you'd be closer to Pentecostal. Maybe you're the Lutheran version of our theonomists or neo-Calvinists. It seems to me a better Calvinist outlook knows the difference between being realistic and idealistic, skeptical instead of cynical.
But, while I have viewpoints on some of these things, I'm not much of an idealogue or politico. Better 2Kers don't think in terms of "fixing" things, we're more about a proximate justice than an exacting one.
My views on the Kingdom of God are 100% in line with the Lutheran Confessions. I go no farther than what the Word of God states, as defined in the Lutheran Confessions. Any teaching regarding this that is contrary to our confessions, we (I) consider as heterodox. Where you come off with the Pentacostal comparison is really off the wall and doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Anytime that you would like to talk "kingdom of God" stuff, bring it on.
I didn't compare you to a dispensationalist. I just said that your apparent apathetic attitude toward the political situation in our country is much like the folks that I know at Calvary Chapel type churches.
We are talking politics here, and that is what I am sticking with. You seem to talk about it also with comments like, "But politics are simply a proximate way to order our daily public lives," in an earlier post. You also have made comments about the Libertarians etc. So, yes, you do talk about it.
When I talk about issues like healthcare, I never say stuff like God is for this plan, or God is for that plan. These are social issues that are to be "fixed" in the healthcare industry, which is what we are discussing here.
Reg is the one that brought up that some people perceive certain healthplans as being more righteous than others. Where does that come from? I don't think that anyone on this website has ever posted such a thing.
I certainly don't know what you are thinking, but I can only judge what you say by what you post on the website.
And looking at the situations like healthcare and other issues in our country, I certainly don't have a problem with trying to help "fix" these problems.
I am keeping politics and religious matters separate, and I am on very solid ground in doing so. There is nothing in the Bible that says that God is a Democrat, Republican or a Libertarian, and I have never said or thought that a Democrat is a second class Christian.
One last thought. A few years ago, I was talking to a Pentecostal Christian around election time. And I asked him what he thought of the upcoming election. He responded, that he didn't vote, follow politics, or get caught up with the things of this world because he was just passing through on his way to heaven.
???????????????????????
But with politics it is not so much about being in or out of the kingdom, but about what is best for a society. Is it better to be free or is it better to be enslaved? Is it better to protect and respect life or is life cheap? The issues in politics are moral and are about righteousness, but they are not about salvation.
The Bible certainly informs us about righteousness (the third use of the law), and can guide us in our civic involvement. But I would say that Joshua 5:13-14 is not relevant to the discussion, except as a reminder that there is a kingdom we must belong to if we wish to avoid God's judgment of the nations, and receive his blessing instead.
I don't have much time. But Let me make a couple brief comments:
Lloyd, the Pentecostal crack was hyperbole to make a point. Mine is more a meta-conversation than an immediate one. That is, I'm not so interested in discussing issues like healhcare, etc., but wonder how our theology bears on our ideology. I know you think I'm showing Anabaptistic tendencies here, but, honestly, I'm neck deep in the world. I rejected the world-denying Gnostic stuff long ago. I'm trying to take the command to be in the world but not of it very seriously.
Bill, while it needs a fair amount of qualification, I think you are gettiing close to it when you suggest on my part that there is "no moral difference between a free nation and a totalitarian nation." Free nations can be quite immoral and not categorically moral just because they aren't totalitarian. Contrariwise, totalitarian states can be quite moral. I like my time and place called 21st century America, because it's mine, not because it's morally superior.
Freedom is a very good thing. A blessing from God.
I do to take many strong political positions in the Kingdom of Man (although my sense is we likely would disagree on many of them.) But I also harbor no illusions about the righteousness of any politician or position. I also understand that my own views are just that, views, which are tainted by my own sin, lack of discernment, ego, etc. etc.
Both of you have great comments in your latest post's.
One last thing on politics: I am not an expert on politics, there are many on this website that know 10 times more than I do on it.
I'm just concerned about us losing our freedom in the U.S. It just seems like we are heading in that direction, as we are destroying ourselves from within.
I will fight for this freedom, that we all enjoy. However, if we go down as a nation, it is God's will. And He determines things to happen according to His secret will. Whatever that is, we do not know, but, we'll just have to be faithful to whatever situation that He has called us to as citizens of both kingdoms.
Some would say that we went south a long time ago, like 1787, when the anti-federalists lost to the federalists. So when people today speak in tones like yours it would seem that something is quite wide the mark.
But the anti-Bushies spoke the same way just a few years ago, with all their "we're becoming a fascist state where we'll all lose or freedoms." Now the anti-Obamakins want us all to think socialism is right around the corner and is about to eat our first born. Both would perhaps do better to look back to 1787. It might go a long way to quelling modern hysterics.
But, even beyond that, a Christian perspective says that we have been placed in our particular time and place, evil has been thwarted already, so assume a more pilgrim-like disposition and wait for the bread and wine to come your way. It's all good.
Reg, while I agree that no one is righteous, no not one, including myself and society, that doesn't preclude the field of ethics and making moral judgments based on the truth of God's Word. You seem perilously close to a relativistic position, because of your lack of confidence in the ability of regenerate human beings to be guided by the third use of the law and the Spirit of God.
"I think it is possible the reason you can be so laissez-faire about the difference between totalitariansim and freedom is that you've never lived in a totalitarian regime."
It's true, I haven't. But doesn't that cut both ways? Maybe you have lived under totalitarianism, but most folks I know who speak the way you are haven't. So when they suggest that personal experience somehow counts, the faulting of my points seems pretty lame. Even so, I'm not as persuaded of the premise that personal experience counts the way you are suggesting. Also, the idea that America nurtures what is morally good is a hard pill to swallow when flipping through brouchures to Vegas, or even watching my daughter's favorite TV show billed as "family friendly" and the commercials designed to promote it.
Isn't the premise of your view that America has lost, or is losing its moral compass? How could that happen when we've been built upon supposedly morally superior ideas?
"...while I agree that no one is righteous, no not one, including myself and society, that doesn't preclude the field of ethics and making moral judgments based on the truth of God's Word."
So does that mean the Bible really is a hand book for living, but only when it comes to enduring things (like ethics and statecraft) but not trivial things (like how to be personally fulfilled)? Are you suggesting that general revelation really isn't enough to order the temporal order and needs special revelation? Is it using the Bible inappropriately when Osteen tells us it meets our trivial felt needs, but OK when ethicists reach for it to settle more serious matters? Or is the Bible ever and only about the salvation of God's people and no respecter of any of man's felt needs?
Bill, it also seems to me that what your assumptions finally do is insist that the believer in another polity must be antagonistic toward his place, perhaps even ashamed, and that the believer in a "free" country may think of his place as superior. This isn't too unlike the presuppotitons of the transformationalists (e.g. Keller), who presume that a place is fundamentally and esssentially flawed, as opposed to the localists who presume a place is fundamentally very good. One nurtures arrogance, the other just plain nurtures. It also seems to presume that the only way to evaluate a place is by way of its polity, which is an impoverished way to assess any creational domain. A place is complicated and its complexities must be taken into account.
It's also as silly as saying, "My dad is the best dad in the world and superior to yours" and actually believing this is objectively measurable, when in fact it is an utterance of love and loyalty. In the same way, one should be able say his place is the best place in the whole world without actually believing it is superior. Or maybe you don't get the joke when Michael Scott takes his "World's Best Boss" mug to convey something objectively true?
I agree with Zrim, that America does not nurture what is morally good. In its morals, we might be among the worst. Zrim brings up Vegas, (the slogan of "what goes on here, stays here," was actually quoted by OJ Simpson in his latest crime). There are numerous examples on T.V., etc.
Actually, since the fall, man has always loved a sinful lifestyle -- and being an American does not take away our desire to sin. The same sins that man practice today, have always been practiced by man throughout history (as recorded about 6,000 to 9,000 years or so).
The recent exchanges all trace their roots to a comment about the Health care reform bill (or bills) before congress being evil and the next rung on the ladder to socialist totalitatianism. My own view is that most people on both sides of that debate are in favor of what each believes to be in the best interest of the county. I am not sure how this rises to the level of "the field of ethics and making moral judgments based on the truth of God's Word." I admit I know very little of what the bill du jour proposes, but I am virtually certain what is at issue is a mundane policy disagreement between left and right, not issues of the application of God's word.
I also assure you I am not a relativist in areas of theology. I am also not a relativist in issues of politics, but rather accept that this is an area where we make the best judgments we can knowing that that is all they are: best judgments, given what we understand at that time and aware of our limitations..