29June2012

It’s a tax! (well, 5-4, anyway)

Written By robfaircloth

The Supreme Court’s decision regarding ObamaCare is filled with high drama: the Chief Justice, appointed by Republican George W. Bush, sided with the more liberal/progressive Justices appointed primarily by Democrat presidents to reach a 5-4 decision upholding the legislation; in so doing, he declared the Act to be a tax, something President Obama and his lawyers had been insistent that it most definitely was not.

Sure, the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution did not authorize such a sweeping power-grab, but the Tax Clause does.

After the secretive nature of the passing of the bill (“We have to pass it to find out what’s in it” — Pelosi), and given the subsequent dislike which the majority of Americans feels for the monstrosity after discovering “what’s in it”, receiving a 5-4 decision from those who are touted as Constitutional experts is hardly satisfying.

Even worse is the obvious conclusion that the Court is politicized. It has become a microcosm of contemporary politics: 40% on the left, 40% on the right, and 20% allegedly “neutral.” Only in the most mundane and obvious of Constitutional questions does the Court reach anything resembling consensus.

It is high time that the Court did away with split decisions. Otherwise, given every successive President’s attempt to pack the Court in miniature, the Court is simply a very small Congress with longer tenure. This is not what the Framers envisioned, and is not conducive to confidence in a neutral arbiter of Constitutional questions.

27June2012

Nursing believers: craving the Word

Written By robfaircloth

Peter challenges his readers in 1 Peter 2:2-3 with a reference to newborn infants. But here he is not calling them “babies” as a pejorative to challenge them to grow with respect to biblical truth (Hebrews). Here, Peter calls them — and us — to be “like babies” with respect to pure spiritual milk.

“Pure spiritual milk” here is the Word of God, the teaching of the gospel, revealed truth.

And followers of Christ are to crave that Word as an infant craves it’s mother’s milk. Here are a few things we should remember in keeping with Peter’s imagery:

Infants don’t need to be told to crave milk. Parents don’t typically waste time suggesting to the baby “try it you’ll like it,” or “drain your bottle and you can go ride your bike.” Infants know — with a God-placed desire — that it needs milk to survive and thrive. Believers should be the same toward the Bible.

Infants don’t need fancy methods to consume milk.Despite angled bottles, PBA-free plastic, and a plethora of nipple apertures (you parents know what I’m talking about), God designed a very simple method of delivering a mother’s milk to the baby. We, too, get distracted sometimes with the various Bible-reading tools, when the simplest thing is to simply read the Bible.

Infants are single-minded in their focus on getting milk. Sure, infants are troubled by gas and need to be burped. Sure, milk is digested and produces by-products (hopefully) caught in the diaper. But for the infant, the burping and digesting and eliminating is all simply creating space for more milk. That is focused devotion. Believers should be as concerned to consume the Word.

Infants don’t confine their consumption of milk to a schedule. For some believers, the schedule of Bible consumption is merely weekly: they might hear a little bit on Sunday morning. For some, the schedule includes Bible reading during quiet times and devotions. But a schedule is a schedule, and we would be very concerned if an infant only desired milk for thirty minutes before work each day. Babies consume milk anytime, anywhere. Believers, take note.

Infants aren’t concerned with who sees them nursing. Nursing mothers are understandably sensitive to the time and place that they feed the baby, because of others who might be around. Unwanted attention could be embarrassing for all involved. But have you ever seen an infant check for privacy before nursing? Do you avoid carrying your Bible because of what people will think? Would you only read it at lunch if you could hide it behind the newspaper?

If newborns and infants don’t crave milk, we know that something is terribly wrong.

Crave the Word.

7May2012

Monday to Saturday compassion

Written By robfaircloth

We may sing on Sunday morning, “Rescue the perishing, care for the dying, snatch them in pity from sin and the grave,” but our actions during the week might be proclaiming, “I really couldn’t care less.”

— Timothy K. Beougher, Overcoming Walls to Witnessing

1May2012

The trinitarian purpose of Christian trials

Written By robfaircloth

The Apostle Peter wrote to some of his people who were suffering for their profession of faith in Jesus Christ and who were enduring trials generally.

In his letter, 1 Peter, the Apostle addresses how they were, as “elect exiles,” ambassadors representing a foreign kingdom and sojourning on the earth, proclaiming the news that their King had given them and bringing others back with them to their true hom.

But Peter did not begin his letter with promises of immediate relief or with tips to lessen their suffering. In fact, with what we would consider poor bedside manner, Peter eventually promises that “after you suffer for a little while” God would comfort them (1 Peter 5:10).

What Peter decided that his hearers needed to know first, before addressing their trials, was who God was and who they were in God. In a soaring proclamation of the role that each person of the trinity plays, Peter reassured his readers with descriptions of the Godhead and how the trinity works together both to save and to secure, even through temporal circumstances (1 Peter 1:1-2).

Perhaps Peter was telling them that before they focused on what is happening, they should focus on what is. Before fosuing on what what happening to them, they should focus on what had been done for them. Before focusing on their suffering, they should focus on their Savior. Before focusing on their tribulation, they should focus on the trinity.

It is certainly true that we don’t understand earthly things rightly before we begin to comprehend heavenly things truly.

28April2012

Is open rebuke really better?

Written By robfaircloth

Proverbs 27:5 says “Better is open rebuke, than hidden love.”

Really? Who welcomes open rebuke? Who welcomes hidden rebuke?

Who even welcomes rebuke that really looks like something else altogether?

All of us have had the experience in which we ask, perhaps only in our mind and to ourselves, “what does he or she really think of me?” He or she may, in fact, have great affection or love for you, but the unknown renders the reality ineffectual.

Charity toward another — “love” in the Proverb — is not meant to be hidden. Love is to be expressed. Or demonstrated. This is why we should be quick to understand love not merely as emotion, or feeling, but as the emotion or feeling expressed and demonstrated toward its object.

One might even say that love as emotion and feeling is not true love until it is expressed toward its object.

“Love consists in this…that God loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10, CSB).

So, as with many Proverbs, the truth is in the comparison. Hidden love is relatively worthless, both to the one holding it and the one (not) receiving it. Open rebuke, by comparison, at least has value, even if only to confirm where the rebuker stands.