The parade was a great time for the kids. I got excited because we saw both Chet Culver, the current governor, and Terry Branstad, the once and future governor. It’s anecdotal but the men’s management style was completely different. Culver came through first and was weaving back and forth from side to side skipping people in the process. Branstad was much more methodical. He took one side and his Lt. governor candidate took the other. Very efficient. I shook Gov. Branstad’s hand as he walked by and gave a quick shout that we are supporting him. He is the only governor I remember when I still lived in Iowa. I hope he wins. He sure seemed to have a lot of support on the block we were on and has every reason to be confident. Sen. Grassley also walked by. I let him know we need him in congress.

Today is a good day not only to stuff our faces and enjoy the outdoors and shoot or watch fireworks but also to spend some time reflecting on the qualities that are at the foundation of this country. Naturally, these are best expressed by the greatness of Thomas Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence itself:

Like many Americans, I seldom take the time to actually read the founding documents. We have this general sense of what they they say. It’s all around us like air. Independence and that charming American pluck in the face of disaster is the air we breathe every day of our lives. But there are several points that bear special mention today:

1. Theology of equality – The Declaration makes a theological argument. People are equal because God made them equal. Yes, this is a truth that took too long to be fully realized-and we are still working on it-but God’s role is recognized. The rise of secularism in this country makes this a harder sell and helps explain the drift away from the founding principles.
2. Governmental role – The government is there for the people to secure their rights, not to grant them. This role is granted to the government by the people (“consent of the governed”) to exercise “just powers.” Is there a more important message for a government that seems to feel entitled to every dime and industry?
3. Right to Replace – The Declaration acknowledges the right of the governed to replace the government oppressing them. The Declaration itself laughs in the face of those who think repealing Obamacare is a pipe dream. Not only is it possible thanks to the tremendous government the founders gave us but it is our right.
4. Safety and Happiness – The government’s role is to secure not only rights but safety and happiness. The founders were convinced that England was no longer capable or willing to secure these two basic things. I’m starting to wonder about ours.

Those are the thoughts running through my head as I celebrate today. What are your reflections on God and country today? I’d love to hear how you celebrate Independence Day. And thank a veteran. We wouldn’t have our freedoms but for those who died to secure them.

Peter’s central point is to live more like Jesus in all the situations you find yourself in. So when he addresses people living under the central government in Rome he says, submit yourselves. To slaves, he says submit to your master. To wives he says submit to your husbands. To husbands he says to be considerate and to treat your wife with respect. What is in the middle of all of that is most instructive.

Sandwiched between four commands to submit to authorities in our lives are these words: “To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.” Doesn’t it always come back to Jesus somehow? Jesus, though he was completely innocent, accepted a death sentence from a corrupt government. He was silent as lies were said about him and held his tongue while wicked men insulted him. I don’t know about you but I could never do that. Eventually someone would say something and I would be all over the comeback. Not Jesus.

Jesus understood that he was under another authority and a greater one. It did not really matter if those who imagined themselves better than the Holy One of God insulted him with profanities. The cowardly judge who finally sent him to death because he had trouble controlling a crowd did not have the final say. “Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.”

And now we have come to the real issue. If Jesus can trust himself to God all the way to a hill of death can’t you and I submit ourselves to the authorities over us knowing it is only for a little while? Somehow, that’s not as easy to do as it is to write.

How do you handle authority in your life? Is it a struggle? Share your story in the comments. I’d love to hear it.

Sunderland’s ambition recalls America’s adventurous spirit. I am afraid that spirit is nearly lost. What ever happened to the pluck that drove Americans westward? Have we forgotten that this country was started by people making the most dangerous journey of their lives coming from Europe to an uncertain and assuredly difficult future? What made them do it? Sure wasn’t a desire for safety and security.

Have we forgotten so soon the heroes of the twentieth century? Remember just one in Charles Lindbergh’s flight across the Atlantic and just try to not be amazed. Remember this is when flight was still in its infancy and there were a great many risks. His story is still inspiring.

Read about the adventure here and here.

Some argue that that the biggest problem with Sunderland’s dangerous trip is her youth. To them I say, what business is it of yours to say what she can and cannot do and when? We ought to be grateful that American courage is not dead and inspired that it is manifest in one so young.

Americans are natural risk takers. It’s just in our national character and I believe reflects a bit of God’s image in us. I hope there are more Abby Sunderlands coming up in the next generation. We need them.

And yet, he did not decay. He was raised to life with power the Bible says made the guardians of his tomb fall down. In so doing, Jesus conquered death and sin in one divinely orchestrated event. He did it for you. He did it for me, that we might have peace with God, at long last.

If you do not know Jesus, seek him. He promised those who do will find. If you do know him, seek him all the more earnestly today. The power of his resurrection is in you.

Events like this put into perspective our work in churches. Are we making disciples? We do not face similar threats to our physical harm in the U.S. but we do face a spiritual enemy who is eager to keep us flabby in the faith. Pray that our faith will be strengthened, too.

From the piece:

Funny. I have never read an AP piece about how others should cry for Christians who are subjected to-and therefore disenfranchised by-Darwin’s theory of evolution in public school. The piece does not bother to wonder why 1.5 million kids are being home-schooled in the first place. Must not be relevant that many, if not most, of the Christians home-schooling their children are doing so precisely because of the Darwinist slant in public education. Then there is the fact that many public schools just stink like three day old fish.

It ends with a story about a home-schooled kid who is not afraid to embark on a career in marine biology in spite of the field’s evolutionary bent. Mom even gets in an elbow at public school:

Nice shot, mom.

• Did you see the Audi ad with the environmental police during the Super Bowl? Jonah Goldberg calls it “Gorewellian.” He wonders if it will sell cars. I was disgusted and let the people I was watching the game with know perhaps crossing some social boundaries. What else is new?
• The Weekly Standard has a very interesting if lengthy article called “The New Dating Game” by Charlotte Allen. The article explains the new realities of dating and casual sex and the consequences for society. While I do not agree with some of the sociological explanations for why men and women act the way they do, it is fascinating to explore how traditional marriage is really beneficial for society precisely because it limits individuals.
• New pictures of the Twin Towers collapsing were released recently. The pictures serve as a burr under the saddle of those who would pretend Islam is not a threat to our survival.
• You can’t talk about God in the mall even if you are invited to in California, apparently.
• I used to be a fan of Roger Ebert. His movie reviews are the best around. Apparently he does not want conservative readers. Sad. UPDATE: Ebert later tweeted that he will no longer use the term.
• David Rothkopf thinks the real change Obama needs is in the leader of the Senate, Harry Reid. He might get his wish as Reid is not looking good for November. I, for one, am stoked about the idea of defeating a second straight Democrat majority leader at the polls.

First, anything in the public sphere (i.e. Super Bowl commercial) that is sponsored or supported by Christians and Christian values (in this case life) will be met with severe condemnation and, if possible, censorship. The anything goes, say-what-you-want-to-say crowd only cares about free expression when they are the ones doing the expressing.

Second, the ultra-radical left thinks the opposite of encouraging women to let their babies live to be homosexual kissing. I suppose they are right. It is simply startling that anyone thinks encouraging life is offensive. If anyone can make a good case, I’d like to hear it.

The knee-jerk reaction shows just how far from the truth they really are.

Of course, Machen was referring to theological liberalism, with its alternative (and counterfeit) notion of “Christianity,” and not specifically political liberalism.

Still, given that most theological liberals are also – and I would add consequently – political liberals while consistent theological conservatives are also – and again, I would add consequently – political conservatives, I take it for granted that there is a connection to be made.

 In this post I want to refer to epistemology, or what is knowledge and how it is that we know.

 For our dear Christian readers, you’re undoubtedly already aware of what I’m about to write. And that is: Leftists of all stripes have a different understanding of what constitutes reality and knowledge and truth compared to the understanding of these things that comes from a consistent application of the cognitive processes employed by us. And unfortunately, since the agents of Leftist thought for all practical purposes control the various forums and venues that influence the culture, it is possible that as lamentable as it may be, that at least some of you have inadvertently adopted an epistemological framework that is in its logical consequences friendly toward liberal thought, which is, as I noted earlier, inconsistent with the Christian faith.

 To what do I refer?

 Specifically here I want to address the distinction between conservative and liberal understanding of the source of meaning. This is important because in subsequent posts I will unpack a few reasons why liberal thought is inconsistent with Scripture, and is therefore something that should be rejected and resisted by Christians.

 When it comes to art, literature, history, reality – you name it, a conservative epistemology understands that truth and meaning lie outside myself, or my “community.” Who determines what something means? The person – or group – who wrote it, painted it, sculpted it, built it, engineered it, etc. And what is our job? To understand what it is that is out there, outside myself, in its objective reality.

To illustrate, consider that conservatives approach Scripture asking, “What does this mean?” And to answer that question we engage in exegesis and in the process of doing so we attempt to understand what the passage is saying. We may end up coming to a different opinion as to what it means, but our goal and intent is identical: We are trying to understand the message conveyed by the author because we understand that it is that message that is authoritative for us. When we apply the same principle to things like the Constitution, we seek to understand “authorial intent” because we understand that the way to discover what the Constitution means is to understand what it is that the Framers meant.

Contrast this with the epistemology of liberalism. Leftists desperately need to convince you that meaning is not “out there,” standing like a pillar that doesn’t change regardless of the fads or trends of the culture. No, Leftists need and want you to believe that there is no inherent and authoritative meaning so that they can sweep into that vacuum and “provide” a “truth” that they can then repeat over and over until people think of it as a shared value.

To reuse the illustration of how Scripture is understood, Liberals don’t ask, “What does this mean?” Instead, they ask, “What does this mean… to me?” They don’t have much use for the meaning intended by the author, what’s important is what we think. And of course, what we think is influenced by the culture around us. And who shapes the culture? The leftists. But then when it comes to the Constitution, leftists like to call it a “living document” as opposed to a “dead document.” Now, this is where they trick you – they borrow the terminology of “living” and “dead” from language, and they say that to be “living” is to have present applicability, whereas a “dead” language is no longer used. But that’s not quite accurate…. A “dead” language is one that is no longer changing. The rules of that language are “set.” A “living” language is one whose rules still change and there is an ongoing “evolution” to it. What does this have to do with the Constitution? Leftists call it a “living document” and they confuse (as they do most things) the difference between interpretation and application. Leftists say that the Constitution can be reinterpreted – which means that it can be made to mean things that prior generations didn’t think it meant. In other words, it doesn’t matter what the Framers meant by, oh, the 1^st Amendment. What matters is what we think it means.

There are vast differences between how liberals and conservatives process and understand and attribute meaning. Liberals believe that there is no inherent meaning, or at least that the determiner of that meaning is NOT the author. Conservatives, on the other hand, understand that meaning is determined by the author.

To see the lie of the leftist position, one simply needs to stop and reflect on the basic truths of human communication. When someone opens their mouth to speak, or puts their thoughts to paper, we intend to send a message. When a Leftist pontificates about the plight of the working man, he (or she) wants to be understood. But a consistent application of leftist epistemology would result in me interpreting their words however I want. Maybe I’m in a hungry mood, so while she’s going on and on, I decide that she’s talking about lunch. Of course, that’s ridiculous. The communicator is attempting to send a message, and it is our job to try to understand. Human communication hinges upon the fact that when someone speaks they send a message. Now, this truth we take for granted. But leftists would have you believe that in every other aspect of life we suddenly slip into some sort of surreal twilight zone in which those basic rules are no longer applicable.

So. All this to say: Leftists need people to forget that there is objective meaning in the world so that they can be the ones to come and fill that void for you. Be careful!

I’d be interested to hear reactions from military people. The military obviously tries to accommodate everyone religiously. I wonder how this works in practice.

I have long held the view that as far as the government is concerned everyone should be allowed to choose whatever religion they like. Don’t get me wrong. I have definite convictions about the truth of Christianity but will still fiercely fight for your right to follow whatever religion you choose. You could put Jedi on your census form this year, if you want to. I’ll think you a little silly, but you can do it.

The principle is important because if the religious freedom of one group can be infringed then so can that of Christ-followers. As a Christian, I want to see all people place their faith in Christ. Just keep the government out of it. They have no business telling you what religion to follow.

So here is the question: What is this headed toward? Is Christianity a dominate religion the needs to be balanced by elevating other religions? Or is this another step away from our roots toward religious pluralism?