Bringing Home the Bacon

Congress, with its batch of fresh faces from the November election, vowed to address the subject of earmarks in appropriations bills (e.g., bacon for voters to chew on).

Conservatives proposed banning the practice of earmarks altogether. To do so would mean that individual congressmen would no longer be able to attach the approval to spend money on his district’s rattlesnake rodeo to unrelated bills addressing the USDA meat inspection practices, for example.

In the scheme of trillion-dollar budgets and even bigger deficits, earmarks don’t amount to much. But to ordinary taxpayers, and because of the ideology of big government it represents, they do.

But even some Republicans balked at the notion, on the grounds that ‘it is my duty to make sure I secure some federal money for my constituents back home.’

Let’s review a few basic principles from Civics 101.

The ‘federal money’ only exists because the U.S. Government takes it from citizens. It takes money from citizens by taxing us: income tax, business tax, fees, regulations, etc, etc.

So, to ‘secure’ federal money for constituents is to capitulate to the most inefficient scheme ever: send money to Washington through taxes, then beg for it back after politicians, bureacrats and regulators have extracted salaries and fees and generally wasted a bunch of it.

If congressmen were really concerned about constituents, they would seek to end the practice altogether. If people in your district need money for the rattlesnake rodeo, don’t beg for it from Washington: instead, don’t send it to Washington in the first place.

The attempt to ban earmarks? Failed.

The Effectual Call & Views of Man

Anthony Hoekema, in his book Saved by Grace, gives a good summary of the effects that one’s view of the effectual call of the gospel had in relation to one’s view of the nature of man.

The ‘gospel call’ is the demand the gospel places on all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel. The ‘effectual call’ is that which results on one man’s responding to the gospel call while another does not.

According to Hoekema, one’s view of the nature of man has great impact on whether one sees a distinction between the gospel call and effectual call at all, and the relation between them and the nature of man.

The Pelagian View

Man is morally and spiritually neutral so that he is free to choose to do good or bad. No effectual call is necessary.

The Semi-Pelagian View

Man is morally and spiritually sick, but all still have the ability to respond to the gospel. No effectual call is necessary.

The Arminian View

Man is depraved, but there is sufficient enabling grace such that those who hear the gospel can cooperate with this grace and accept the gospel. No effectual call is necessary.

The Reformed View

Man is dead in sin, unable on his own to respond favorably to the gospel call. Effectual calling is necessary to bring the man to life and enable him to respond.

It is certainly apt to suggest that the doctrines of grace all fall into place once the biblical picture of the nature of man is accepted. As J.I. Packer said, one needs only be a one-point Calvinist: God Saves Sinners.

Do we take heaven by storm?

In discussing the ministry of his cousin, Jesus reported that ‘from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force’ (Matthew 11:12).

From the time the Baptist preached repentance for the forgiveness of sins, because the kingdom was at hand, multitudes strained to gain entry, much like a destitute hoard which learns that the riches of a fortified city may be theirs if only they scale the walls.

In the eyes of the religious, their precious stronghold was being overrun by undesirables.

In another sense, the kingdom does not come without violence: it separates those who would be in from those who wish to remain out; it pits those who welcome the reign it represents from those who continue to rebel against its Lord.

And, further, the kingdom does violence within each man who wishes to enter, for entry into Christ’s kingdom requires the mortification of the flesh — putting to death the deeds of the worldly desires that continue to rise up within us. This violence requires us to pluck out our proverbial eye, to cut off our metaphorical hand, if such is necessary to secure our entry.

Of course, the world, the flesh, the devil do not want any to enter Christ’s kingdom, and themselves strive and strain to preserve their grip on the souls of men. Only the violent — those regenerated and empowered by the Spirit — can resist with the violence necessary to escape their clutches.

Of this violent kingdom-taking Thomas Watson writes: ‘the flesh is a sly enemy; at first dulce venenum (a beautiful charm or potion); afterward, scorpio pungens (a fighting scorpion); it kills by embracing’ and ‘the movement of the soul towards sins is natural, but its movement towards heaven is violent'(Heaven Taken by Storm).

Does our faith resemble this sort of violence? Does our walk with Christ require this sort of effort, this continual homicide of our own man?

Or is the most striving and straining we muster in relation to our favorites sports teams? Do we take heaven by storm — with zeal — or do we attempt to ride in, ‘easy-peasy, lemon-squeezy’?

Apostolic Preaching

“Truly apostolic preaching is not ethical imperative ungrounded in theological indicative. It is not psychological manipulation, moralistic harangue based on guilt, or pragmatic life coaching, untethered to the truth of Christ’s redemptive accomplishment on behalf of his believers.

“When the apostolic preacher directs his hearers in God’s name as to their way of life, that direction flows naturally and inevitably out of Christ’s redeeming work on their behalf. Apostolic preaching is profoundly practical because it is profoundly theological. Transformed convictions transform attitudes and behavior.”

Dennis E. Johnson, Him We Proclaim

“Exhortations” are Good News?

Before Jesus began his earthly ministry, his cousin, John the Baptist, prepared the people for the coming Christ. Luke, in his Gospel, reports that the Baptizer’s sermons were anything but user-friendly. He called the crowds a “brood of vipers,” and challenged them to do works that confirmed their professed repentance.

These deeds included radical generosity: whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise (Luke 3:10). They included radical honesty: [tax collectors should] collect no more than you are authorized to do (Luke 3:13). They included radical restraint of power and lack of greed: [soldiers should not] extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages (Luke 3:14).

But the Baptizer gets even more radical. He describes Jesus’ superior greatness in terms of His baptizing people with the Holy Spirit and with fire. In baptizing people with the Holy Spirit and with fire, Jesus will brandish his winnowing fork, He will clear the threshing floor, He will gather His wheat into His barn, and He will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire.

No wonder the Baptizer wore burlap and ate bugs. He probably was not given the key to many cities.

But Luke describes John’s harshness this way: “with many other exhortations he preached good news to the people” (Luke 3:18).

“Good news”? Seriously?

John’s exhortations — even that Jesus will clear the threshing floor and burn chaff with fire — point to the more glorious truth that Jesus will gather his wheat into his barn. No doubt. No uncertainty. No question. He will do it. He will save his people.

How do you know whether you are “Jesus’ wheat”? Repent, and believe the good news.

Subverting our Caesars

Trevin Wax, in his book Holy Subversion, demonstrates that one reason early believers were persecuted was that they subverted the allegiance demanded by the Roman Caesar. Early believers were subversive because they rejected the idea that the Caesar was the chief among the gods, they rejected the idea that power made right, they rejected the idea that sex was to be promoted regardless of its form, they rejected the idea that wealth was to be hoarded.

Wax points out that, obviously, we have no Caesar breathing down our necks, requiring our allegiance by providing bread and circuses — keeping us fat and entertained, as it were.

However, modern Caesars still lure us into practical Caesar worship. Views on money and wealth cause Christians to behave like the world. Views on sexuality cause Christians to act like world. Views on power, politics, health and even entertainment subtly tempt Christians to act like the world, becoming not merely practical atheists (living like there is no God), but practical polytheists (living as if there are many gods to be appeased and praised).

Christians today — much like those of the first centuries — must deliberately recognize and topple all would-be Caesars, deposing them from their worldly thrones and recognizing instead the one, true God, who alone occupies the throne and rules in all aspects of our lives.

Fortifying Hearts

Paul says in Ephesians 3:16-17 that he prays for God to strengthen believers, with power, through the Spirit, in the inner man. The goal of this strengthening is so that Christ may dwell in the believers’ hearts, not in a literal sense, but in a spiritual sense, “though faith.” In other words, believers’ hearts must be fortified by God in order for Christ to dwell there in his absence, much like the breech of a rifle or cannon must be stronger than the muzzle in order not to rupture at the explosion that takes place inside it.