George Washington's Farewell Address

In honor of his birthday, once fastiduously celebrated and remembered by our country, I post President Washington's Farewell Address. It was never delivered orally, but was printed in a newspaper at Philadelphia. Seven days later, it was republished in The Independent Chronicle, a widely read Boston newspaper, published by Thomas Adams and Isaac Larkin.

Regarding President George Washington, Henry Cabot Lodge, a U.S. Senator and Washington biographer wrote "...no man ever left a nobler political testament."

For these trying political days, read these time-honored words:

Friends and Citizens:

The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.

I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.

The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.

I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.

The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.

In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected.

Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion. Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency.

They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it 7 It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils 7 Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.

In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the twenty-second of April, I793, is the index of my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.

After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.

The considerations which respect the right to hold this con duct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.

The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.

The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

Walter Hoye Sentenced for Abortion Protest

Walter Hoye’s sign was simple: “Jesus loves you and your baby. Let us help.” But because his sign was a protest against America’s multi-million dollar abortion industry and because he is living in modern America, where human life is no longer valued and God no longer reverenced, he was destined for trouble.

On May 13, 2008, Pastor Hoye was arrested for allegedly violating a newly enacted law (a “bubble zone”) that places burdens and obstacles on abortion protesters who wish to protest this moral atrocity. Interestingly, Hoye was subsequently a party to the legal challenge asking the new law be ruled unconstitutional. As an African American pastor, he feels especially called to this ministry of protest and runs Issues4Life Foundation.

Strangely enough, no “clients” made any complaints. The prosecutor filed charges based solely upon the testimony of the director of Family Planning Specialists (the abortuary in question), Jackie Barbic. The prosecutor also named a couple of escorts as victims.

During the trial in January of this year, defense cross-examination revealed that one escort never mentioned her alleged intimidation to the police or the district attorney until after the district attorney had already filed the charges against Rev. Hoye.

Yes, you read that right. Oakland’s DA first filed charges against Walter Hoye and then suggested to the ‘escort’ that perhaps she was intimidated. Fortunately, the court dismissed this charge because of the misconduct of the prosecution.

You can see Walter Hoye’s peaceful protest here. The prosecution wasn’t aware of this rebuttal evidence that showed Mr. Barbic’s perjured testimony. It also shows a rather tenacious ‘escort’ who was the one doing the intimidating. Still, the jury found Walter Hoye guilty.

Allison Aranda, Staff Counsel for Life Legal Defense Foundation, who is representing Rev. Hoye said regarding the January verdict: “After speaking with several jurors after the verdict was read, it is clear that the court's failure and outright refusal to instruct the jury regarding the key elements of the crime led to the erroneous conviction of Rev. Hoye,”

And so, because he exercised his constitutional rights of free speech and protest on May 13, 2008, and because he followed his conscience before his God, yesterday he found himself on the 5th floor of the Alameda Superior Court building in Oakland where he was sentenced by Judge Stuart Hing with 30 days in jail and a $1,130 fine.

"This is a deliberate attempt to silence the Church and its prophetic role in protecting the innocent lives in our community and especially Black babies," said Pastor Stephen Broden of Dallas, Texas. "Pastor Hoye represents a legacy of resistance by Black preachers to injustices perpetrated on the beloved community. Prenatal murder of Black babies by the abortion industry should be resisted by every black pastor across this country."

Columnist Star Parker writes:

"...beyond the troubling details of this trial and conviction, circumstances surrounding the case convey the realities of our deeply confused and lost nation.

Abortion clinics such as Family Planning Specialists strategically locate to optimize their deadly business. This means in poor black neighborhoods.

A search of the 94607 zip code in Oakland where this facility is located shows that the population is 50 percent black, the median household income is 40 percent that of the median household income in the state of California while 30 percent earn below the poverty line and 58 percent of households with children are single parent households.

The poor black kids from the broken families and communities there go to failing public schools in Oakland where half of them drop out.

In these failing public schools, it is prohibited to teach the most important thing that these children could possibly hear. That there are absolutes in this world -- that there is right and there is wrong.

As religion and tradition have been purged from public life in America, the most immediate victims have been the weakest and most vulnerable.

California deals with this problem by subsidizing it. Every poor girl that goes to Family Planning Specialists gets her abortion paid for by California state insurance, Medi-Cal.

This fiscal year Medi-Cal will spend $52 million dollars of taxpayer funds paying for abortions of poor young women. This while Governor Schwarzenegger has announced an anticipated deficit of over $40 billion and tens of billions from the federal government in the new trillion dollar "stimulus" package will be sent to bail out the state.

The stated purpose of the Oakland ordinance, which may send Walter Hoye to jail, is to protect 'right of privacy." "Right of privacy" of teenage girls not old enough to vote, but who can get a state paid for abortion without informing a parent.

Yet the first amendment of our constitution no longer protects the freedom of a pastor to peaceably stand in front of an abortion clinic and tell these lost young women there is another way.

Something is wrong in America today. Very, very wrong.

Indeed. The wrong moral wrongness of America has been accelerated through this persecution of this brave patriot. Let us pray for Walter Hoye and his family. And let us pray for our drifting nation.

America--Sinking Fast

America's current economic chaos is only a consequence of our abandoning God, His Word and the principles that have led to our nation's greatness. Here's a great video showing our nation's current bias against the One who has blessed us in the past and the One without whom we can never conquer our current woes.

Okay, I'm more than a little rusty at blogging, so I'm simply passing a thought along...partly because I've have little creative juices flowing and partly because I don't want to invest a lot of time if I can't remember how this blogging technology works.



TWELVE REASONS WHY I STOPPED ATTENDING SPORTS EVENTS

~ Every time I went, they asked me for money.
~ The people with whom I had to sit by didn't seem very friendly.
~ The seats were too hard and not comfortable at all.
~ The coach never came to call on me.
~ The referee made a decision with which I could not agree.
~ I was sitting with some hypocrites -- they came only to see what others were wearing.
~ Some games went into overtime, and I was late getting home.
~ The band played some numbers that I had never heard before.
~ The games are scheduled when I want to do other things.
~ My parents took me to too many games when I was growing up.
~ Since I read a book on sports, I feel that I know more than the coaches anyhow.
~ I don't want to take my children, because I want them to choose for themselves what sport they like best.

July 4 -- Late Night

"If my people, which are called by My name, shall humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land." 2 Chronicles 7:14

America is a land in need of healing. It is a nation overwhelmed with "wicked ways" and one which stubbornly refuses to humble itself. Still it is my nation...my country...land of my birth.

Today was delightful. Traditions. Family. Liberty. God's blessings. The presence of Jesus. I am thankful for much. Mostly, I am thankful that God has both the grace and the power to restore His glory in the United States of America.

I pray He do so...and soon.

July 4th -- afternoon

The Concord Hymn
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1837)

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled;
Here once the embattled farmers stood;
And fired the shot heard round the world.

The foe long since in silence slept;
Alike the conqueror silent sleeps,
And Time the ruined bridge has swept
Down the dark stream that seaward creeps.

On this green bank, by this soft stream,
We place with joy a votive stone,
That memory may their deeds redeem,
When, like our sires, our sons are gone.

O Thou who made those heroes dare
To die, and leave their children free, --
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
The shaft we raised to them and Thee.

For information on the Battle(s) of Lexington and Concord go here.

July 4th -- morning

“It is written large in history that no nation, no empire, no kingdom was ever able to perpetuate itself by depending on military might. Our nation is no exception. On our coins we profess 'In God we trust.' When we begin to take seriously that profession, we can begin to look forward to the fruits of peace.”

--Richard C. Halverson, former Chaplain of the United States Senate.

Independence Now! Independence Forever!

In honor of the great prophet and one of the most extraordinary patriots of the founding era: John Adams and the other men and women who joined together to make our nation possible>>

"[Independence Day] will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the Day of Deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forevermore."

"You will think me transported with enthusiasm, but I am not. I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory; I can see that the end is more than worth all the means, that posterity will triumph in that day's transaction, even though we should rue it, which I trust in God we shall not."

On America's Judges

Conservative, evangelical Christians like myself often castigate the courts. Indeed, there are ample examples of a judiciary that 1) is out of touch with America’s uniquely Christian heritage; 2) lacks common sense; 3) is preoccupied with an agenda outside of the Constitution.

One of my very favorite patriots, John Adams said: “"We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion ... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” It is bad enough when normal citizens are immoral and irreligious. It is quite another when judges are so.

But rather than opine on the negatives, I’d like to rehearse just a few of the many wonderful statements of some of America’s judges.

John Jay, First Chief Justice
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. It is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

The United States Supreme Court, 1811 –John Marshall, Chief Justice
"The morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of other religions. In people whose manners are refined, and whose morals have been elevated and inspired with a more enlarged benevolence, it is by means of the Christian religion."

The United States Supreme Court, 1844 –Roger Brooke Taney, Chief Justice
"Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament be read and taught as a divine revelation in the school? Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?"

James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and an original Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine....Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."

Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1824

"A malicious intention, to vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures, would prove a nursery of vice, a school of preparation to qualify young men for the gallows, and young women for the brothel, and there is not a skeptic of decent manners and good morals, who would not consider such a common nuisance and disgrace...

"No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country. Christianity is part of the common law. Its foundations are broad and strong and deep. It is the purest system of morality and only stable support of all human laws."

The United States Supreme Court, 1892 --Holy Trinity v. United States. After offering a general survey of America's Christian history, and speaking out against the practice of polygamy, the Holy Trinity court stated: “These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, 1952
Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the majority, affirmed “we are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”

Chief Justice Earl Warren was quoted in Time, Feb. 15, 1954:

“I believe no one can read the history of our country...without realizing that the Good Book and the spirit of the Savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses...Whether we look to the first Charter of Virginia...or to the Charter of New England...or to the Charter of Massachusetts Bay...or to the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut...the same objective is present: a Christian land governed by Christian principles...I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people...I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country.”

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story
"It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs whether any free government can be permanent where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape."

Supreme Court of New York, 1811
"Offenses against religion and morality strikes at the root of moral obligation, and weaken the security of the social ties…..This First Amendment declaration never meant to withdraw religion…Whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government, because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order. "

Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1846
"Christianity has reference to the principles of right and wrong; It is the foundation of those morals and manners upon which our society is formed; it is their basis. Remove this and they would fall. Morality has grown upon the basis of Christianity...

"What constitutes the standard of good morals? Is it not Christianity? There certainly is none other. Say that cannot be appealed to, and what would be good morals? The day of moral virtue in which we live would, in an instant, if that standard were abolished, lapse into the dark and murky night of pagan immorality."

Psalm 33:12 “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord; the people who He hath chosen for His own inheritance!”

Today’s America doesn’t look much like the America of 1776. Certainly there have been geographical changes. We are no longer 13 loosely chartered and highly independent colonies, but are now 50 states strong, stretching from “sea to shining sea” – having displaced England, France, Spain and Mexico from any outpost in our land. We are no longer a weak and struggling nation, but are now the world’s superpower. But the biggest change in America has occurred spiritually.

Long before that great American document was signed in Philadelphia, other documents had declared the purpose of why people were coming to America.

For instance, before the pilgrims set foot in Plymouth Colony, Massachusetts in 1620, they sat out in harbor aboard their ship and drafted what has become known as the Mayflower Compact.

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."

Of the 102 passengers, 41 of them (37 of whom were religious Separatists) then set their signatures to what we could call the very first governing document of America. And they had stated clearly why they came. For the honor of their king and their country, yes! But also “for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith”.

As more and more people came from England over the next two decades, it became apparent that another governing document was necessary for the order of the new settlement. The settlers came together to write America’s first official constitution. Though it only governed one settlement (the New England Confederation) it nevertheless was our country’s first official constitution. It began with these words:

“Whereas we all came into these parts with one & the same end & aim, namely to advance the kingdom of our lord Jesus Christ, & to enjoy the liberties of the gospel in purity & peace…"

Clearly, the main purpose of coming to America was for the glory of God and advancement of Christianity.

So it is little wonder that when the colonists were drafting the words in their Declaration of Independence, they appealed to their Christian background, heritage and principles. They had rights entitled by “Nature’s God” and believed these rights were “self-evident” that “all men were created equal” and that they were “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

After listing about 15 or 16 charges against the actions of the King, the signers make two more references to God:

"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled,” (listen to this) “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World…” They’re saying that God is the Supreme Judge of the World and that they were appealing to Him. So their action of rebellion against England was rooted in their belief that they were conducting themselves rightly in the eyes of the King of Heaven.

And then they end their Declaration with these words: “And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence” (that’s God), “we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes & our sacred honor.” Because they were obeying God they confidently relied upon Him for His assistance in their course of action.

Incidentally, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Samuel Adams, leader of Boston’s Sons of Liberty and often called the "Father of the Revolution," declared: "We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, & from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His Kingdom come."

So it is quite disheartening to look upon modern America.

A private businessman Tim Bono was told by the Arlington (Va.) County Human Rights Commission that he must duplicate pro-homosexual videos even though doing so would counter the Christian standards he had established for his business.

In San Diego, a three–judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to stay a federal district judge’s order to remove the Mt. Soledad Cross, meaning the city must remove the historic cross by August 1, or face fines of $5,000 per day.

We could speak of atheist Michael Newdow’s lawsuit against the national motto, “In God We Trust”. Newdow argued that having to use money inscribed with the national motto offends him and is unconstitutional. While this is an encouraging win, the effort to purge even innocuous references to God from the public square continues. Barry Lynn of the high-profile Americans United for the Separation of Church and State has admitted that his organization wants to eliminate phrases like “In God We Trust” from our currency.

In Henderson, Nevada, a high school senior had her microphone unplugged by school officials after she mentioned her Christian beliefs and quoted the Bible in her valedictory address a few days ago.

In Atlanta, FAA employee Larry Dombrowski was suspended without pay for expressing his religious beliefs and views on homosexual behavior at work.

In Whittier, Calif., elementary school officials told Christian students they could not sing a religious song in a talent show, saying the song was “not appropriate”.

We are in danger of losing more than our Christian heritage. We do more than betray the heritage of the Founders. We are provoking our Eternal God to anger. We dishonor the very One who has blessed us, defended us, prospered us and lead us.

May we repent and return to Him.

National Day of Prayer 2008

O Great God, our Dearest Father, give our blind nation sight. Replace America’s hard heart with one inclined toward Your holy ways. Subdue our stubbornness. Break our haughty pride. Let not the righteous efforts of our godly forbears go for nothing. Reward their legacy with national revival. In the name of Jesus we pray, Amen.

Creationism, Intelligent Design and An Intelligent Worldview

Worldview. There’s a term you probably don’t encounter very often, though it has been getting a fair share of publicity lately. Simply stated, a worldview is a person’s way of viewing reality. You could call it our philosophy of life or our way of explaining life as we know it. Everyone needs a framework, some way to explain his or her core belief system.

Understanding what a worldview is and how it works helps us make sense of all the ideas going on around us. Every worldview can be analyzed by the way it addresses three basic tenets: 1) Where did we come from? 2) What has gone wrong? 3) What can we do to fix the problem?

Everything we encounter in our lives can be tested against these criteria. The Christian worldview states that we came from God. He is our Creator. What went wrong? Sin. The Fall. The curse. What can we do to fix the problem? Nothing. Jesus did it all for us. His death on the cross allows our Righteous Creator to forgive our sins and restore our relationship.

If we zero in on that first plank of evaluating a worldview—origin—there are, of course, two major answers: creation and evolution. Every major worldview now in existence will start with one of these two premises. Creationism says that humanity has come about by intent. It goes by many names. The world’s theistic religions (like Judaism, Islam and Christianity) would fall under this category. “Intelligent Design” is a currently popular term (consider, for example, Ben Stein’s movie Expelled) that could encompass secularists who may not necessarily believe in God, but reject naturalism. Christians, specifically believe that God brought us forth and created us in His image. Evolutionists have another idea. They believe we came about by accident, by some chance occurrence and can be religiously zealous in protecting that radical dogma.

There are a plethora of responses to the issue of origins, and the faithful Christian would be wise to know several “evidences” of a Creator. Some people we talk to are rather open to receiving our input; others are quite hostile. In some cases, we can give simple answers; in other instances, we need to be more detailed and scientific.

Thomas Aquinas lived in the 13th century and wrote a major work for Christianity called Summa Theologica. It was a systematic presentation of Christian doctrine in philosophical terms. One of the arguments Aquinas advanced concerning creation was called First Cause. Simply put, if you walked into your kitchen and saw a top spinning on your kitchen table, you would immediately believe one of your children, grandchildren, or a brother or sister had been there right before you to set it in motion. You would never imagine the top inverted itself, started wobbling on its own, building momentum until it was at such a speed it could balance itself properly.

Applied to our world, everything around us causes us to believe there was a First Cause. Christians call Him God. He spoke the world into existence and set everything in motion. Evolutionists, while they would never believe something as simple as a spinning top could start up on its own, advocate that our complex universe started spinning on its own. I find this argument an easy one to remember and an easy one to communicate. Most people follow logic. First Cause is the only logical explanation of how the world as we know it came to be.

Or consider other aspects of our universe. The earth is at the perfect distance from the sun. Any closer and we would boil; any farther and we would freeze. And our planet must remain about the same distance from the sun in its orbit, which means its orbit must be nearly circular (which it is). This is very interesting because most of the other planets have an elliptical orbit. Coincidence? The force of gravity is perfect, allowing the universe to expand at just the right speed. And water is the only known substance in which the solid phase is less dense than the liquid phase. This allows ice to form on the tops of lakes and oceans instead of sinking to bottom—allowing fish and marine life continued existence during cold seasons.

And did you know that the atom itself bears witness to a Designer? The neutron is slightly more massive than the proton, which means that free neutrons can decay and become protons. But if things were reversed and the protons tended to decay, then everything composed of hydrogen would decay. Can you remember back to your science class and name two important things composed of hydrogen? Both the sun and water would decay, along with our observed universe which is estimated to be about 74% hydrogen.

Perhaps one could believe some of these things occurred by random chance. But could any remotely logical person truly believe they ALL occurred by random chance? The evolutionist says yes. That person believes there is no Intelligent Creator who has guided the creation process. I say otherwise. “The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork” (Psalm 19:1).

BTW...Here's my favorite site on this subject: Answers in Genesis

Reflections on the Pope's Visit to America

Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to the U.S. gave me a 1999 flashback. Almost 10 years ago, it was the globe-trotting Pope John Paul II who showed up in America, even venturing into America’s heartland and my home state of Missouri.

Papal visits are rare things, especially to Midwest America. And John Paul II was a morally good man who had pursued many worthy endeavors. However, a dark, theological cloud hung over the Pope’s visit back then—highlighting his spiritual deception.

A few months earlier, in the quiet halls of the Vatican, John Paul II had issued “Incarnationis Mysterium” –a papal bull declaring the jubilee year. At the center of this declaration was the practice of indulgences from punishment for sin, the practice which prompted the Protestant Reformation. This practice is a serious divergence from genuine, biblical faith and must be repudiated by true Christians.

Pope Clement VI was the first to start this deviant doctrine. In the mid-1300’s, he advanced the notion that the church was a treasury of merits stored up by saints. In the 16th century, Pope Julius II revived the practice of selling indulgences to finance the building of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, prompting the fiery dissent of Martin Luther.

The Bible clearly teaches that God (and only God) forgives sin. The church is not the dispenser of forgiveness. Rather, the penitent sinner has access to the Father through our Lord Jesus Christ. As Martin Luther wrote in his 95 theses in 1517, “Any truly repentant Christian has a rich right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without indulgence letters.”

And so, Pope John Paul’s “Incarnationis Mysterium” widened the gulf between Catholics and Protestants. On one hand there is the teaching that you must come to the church for forgiveness; on the other is the belief that you must go to God who alone has the power to wash you and cleanse you.

Pope Benedict XVI has done nothing to correct this theological departure. In fact, his own writings further underscore this historic rift between Catholic and Protestant understandings of the Bible.

So in all the hype and excitement over this latest papal visit, let us commit ourselves afresh to the truth of the Bible and let us resist strongly any and all teachings which pervert the truth of the Holy Scriptures. Finally, may we witness to our Catholic friends and relatives of the grace and forgiveness that is offered directly by God through His Son Jesus Christ.

~~~~~~~

PS: Somewhat off point, but is anyone else annoyed by our President's language? Whenever he refers to God it is usually a very detached "the Almighty". When welcoming Pope Benedict, the President said: "Holy Father, thank you for making this journey to America. Our nation welcomes you." Does one sound more reverent than the other?

“I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, while stumping in Pennsylvania, responded to a question at a town hall meeting over the weekend about his views on the AIDS crisis. Obama began speaking about the importance of both comprehensive sex education and abstinence. Here’s the controversial comment in its context:

"The most important prevention is education, which should include...teaching the children... you know, that sex is not something casual... Look, I've got two daughters--9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

Obama’s statement reveals his dismal respect for human life and his outrageous perspective that a baby is “punishment.” The Bible clearly reveals God’s viewpoint on human life regarding babies: “Children are a heritage from the Lord and the fruit of the womb is His reward” (Psalm 127:3). Babies are reward, not punishment. They are a blessing, not a curse. Let us hope that Obama’s daughters do remain chaste until marriage, for their own sakes as well as a future grandchild reading Grandpa Obama’s words.

And since when is contraception 100% effective? Obama speaks more like a Planned Parenthood propagandist than an informed Presidential hopeful. The sex ed crowd has done a masterful job foisting this myth upon the American people, but the fact remains only abstinence is 100% effective in stopping the physical and emotional effects of sexual intercourse.

And…

Should we be assuming that Barack and Michelle plan on offering training to their daughters on safe needle drug use? I’m sure he teaches his daughters abstinence in the area of drugs as well, “but if they make a mistake” I’m sure he wouldn’t want them “punished” with some disease from shared needles. And is Obama’s “abstinence plus” philosophy also extended to others areas of morality like bank robberies? I’m sure he wants his daughters to abstain from crime, “but if they make a mistake” is he teaching them how to make a fast getaway?

The philosophy of Barack Obama articulated this past weekend has about as much moral weight as Jello. The only consistent and reasonable position in sexuality and all other moral issues is to teach abstinence only. A part of that equation is teaching that consequences come from a result of violating that code.

What causes you sorrow?

The prophet Jeremiah, was known as a weeper. Jeremiah was observant of the tangible consequences of spiritual rebellion against God. And he was privy to the judgment that God was going to execute. Knowing the present and future spiritual condition of his nation broke his heart.

Regarding the future judgment from God, Jeremiah asked “For who will have pity on you, O Jerusalem? Or who will bemoan you? Or who will turn aside to ask how you are doing?” (Jer. 15:5).

Jeremiah’s lamenting question had an answer. It would come 150 years later in a living, breathing man in a Persian palace named Nehemiah. He often wondered how things were going in Jerusalem and one day he discovered the truth and it broke his heart.

He wrote “And it came to pass, when I heard these words [of Jerusalem’s condition], I sat down and wept.” (Nehemiah 1:4).

Almost 500 years later, Jesus too, would weep over the condition of Jerusalem (Luke 19:41). Nehemiah’s primary concern was with the physical and social condition of Jerusalem. Jesus’ primary concern was over the spiritual condition of Jerusalem.

There’s a lot of weeping in the Bible. Hagar weeps when she knows her son Ishmael is going to die in the desert from dehydration. Joseph weeps many times during the reconciliation process with his brothers. Israel wept over the death of Moses (for 30 days). Naomi, Ruth and Orpah wept over their separation from each other. David wept over the death of his son Absalom. Peter wept over his denials of Jesus. The Ephesian elders weep over Paul’s departure. And who could miss the shortest verse in the Bible? It comes after the news of the death of Lazarus and says simply “Jesus wept” (John 11:35).

I think there’s too little weeping in Christ’s church.

Back to Nehemiah. Chip Ingram, in Holy Ambition, labels Nehemiah’s weeping as “a dislocated heart.” That’s a powerful phrase. Bible commentator Raymond Brown writes “Although [Nehemiah] had a highly responsible job, in a secure environment in a fine Persian city, noted for its opulence and prosperity, magnificent buildings and spacious gardens, he is not remotely preoccupied with himself.”

That’s the key isn’t it? Getting over ourselves. Considering the plight of someone else. Thinking of others more than we think about ourselves (Philippians 2:4).

The Puritan Matthew Henry suggests “The desolations and distresses of the church ought to be the matter of our grief, how much soever we live at ease.”

When you study grief, sorrow and weeping in the Bible you’ll find two significant things. One, people took time to grieve. There were moments, days, even a month of crying and grieving. We often are not in touch with our grief and even more rarely in touch with things that will cause us to grieve. We’ve turned to busyness, crowding our lives with movement, leisure and action and schedule nothing for reflection and consideration of what is happening to our neighbor across the street or our Christian brother across the world.

The second thing you’ll find in the Bible is that people did something with their grief. Sometimes it is simply offering a prayer to God. With Nehemiah, his grief got translated into an elaborate plan to rebuild Jerusalem. We aren’t simply to be sad, melancholy people. There is much that will cause grief to our hears and rightly so. But Christians must do more. We must cry out to God. We must develop plans to change situations.

In Act II of The Devil’s Disciple, playwright George Bernard Shaw writes profound words into the mouth of his character Rev. Anthony Anderson, who says: “The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them: that’s the essence of inhumanity.”

Let’s put more of Jesus into our lives and into the world and weep more.

The Cross of Jesus

The cross is necessary because there is nothing we could ever do to merit the forgiveness of God. But Jesus has done it. He has done something so wonderful and precious, that we sinners can be reconciled to God. Jesus was a perfect sacrifice. He fulfilled the demands of the law. He absorbed the punishing wrath of God.

So we can trust in ourselves; in our merit; in our righteousness and by our own works and be judged by those. Or we can trust in Jesus. We can rely on His merit; on His righteousness and in His work on Calvary’s cross. The former trust will let us down and send us to hell. The latter trust will take us to God’s grace and safely deliver us to heaven.

Augustine, the 5th century bishop of Hippo, preached a sermon entitled “Let Us Too Glory In the Cross of the Lord.” Here’s one excerpt:

The death of the Lord our God should not be a cause of shame for us; rather, it should be our greatest hope, our greatest glory. In taking upon himself the death that he found in us, he has most faithfully promised to give us life in him, such as we cannot have of ourselves. He loved us so much that, sinless himself, he suffered for us sinners the punishment we deserved for our sins. How then can he fail to give us the reward we deserve for our righteousness, for he is the source of righteousness? How can he, whose promises are true, fail to reward the saints when he bore the punishment of sinners, though without sin himself?

Brethren, let us then fearlessly acknowledge, and even openly proclaim, that Christ was crucified for us; let us confess it, not in fear but in joy, not in shame but in glory.

The apostle Paul saw Christ, and extolled his claim to glory. He had many great and inspired things to say about Christ, but he did not say that he boasted in Christ's wonderful works: in creating the world, since he was God with the Father, or in ruling the world, though he was also a man like us. Rather, he said: Let me not boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I hope you know the power of His cross. This is truly Good Friday. Good for all sinners whose sins are washed away by His blood. Good for me, for I have believed in Him—therefore I “will not perish but have everlasting life.”

Maundy Thursday—Betrayal & Arrest of Jesus

Judas’ betrayal of Jesus is well known to Christians and non-Christians alike. But other than being a glib, passing reference of Bible trivia that gives unbelievers comfort in knowing at least this part of the Bible, it should be reason for weighty introspection.

This was the night—so tradition says—so many, many years ago when the earthly ministry of Jesus of Nazareth would be brought to an end. This night marks the anniversary of Jesus’ loss of freedom.

Jesus had said “the foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no where to lay his head” (Matthew 8:20). Still, homelessness is one thing; imprisonment (and subsequent execution) is quite another. While Jesus was intentionally dependent on the generous material provisions of his friends and followers, he was free to travel whenever he wanted to wherever he wanted.

All four gospel accounts of Judas’ betrayal remind us that Judas was one of the twelve (Matthew 26:14; Mark 14:10; Luke 22:47; John 6:71). Luke would later write “[Judas] was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry”(Acts 1:17). The prophecy in Psalm 41:9 was that it would be a “familiar friend” that would “lift up his heel” against Jesus. That’s the first bitter pill to swallow. Judas was an insider.

A brief perusal of church history will show that insiders, not outsiders, do more harm to Christianity. Nero, Claudius, Domitian are a few of the thousands of names of outsiders who sought to do great harm to the mission of Jesus. And while they brought much pain and sorrow and suffering and death, their persecutions actually helped strengthen Christian faith. Tertullian’s great observation in the third century that, “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church” was and is a truism. Names like Marcion, Arius, and Pelagius are names that have led many away from the truth of Christ. Judas was an insider.

The Church today still has external threats. But far more sinister are the threats from within. Christians leave their “first love” (Revelation 2:4-5); tolerate false doctrine and compromise their beliefs (Rev. 2:14-16), even to the point of turning a blind eye to false teachers (Rev. 2:20) and following “their pernicious ways” (2 Peter 2:1). Christians live sloppy, unwatchful spiritual lives (Rev. 3:1-3) and becoming lukewarm and ineffective (Rev. 3:15-16).

Today gives Christians an opportunity to look within ourselves; to find Judas-like qualities and behaviors that are treacherous and traitorous to our beloved Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Before we condemn Judas, maybe we should examine our own heart and life.

Worship Wisdom from A.W. Tozer

"It is very hard for me to accept the fact that it is now very rare for anyone to come into the house of God with guard completely down, head bowed and with the silent confession:

'Dear Lord, I am ready and willing to hear what You will speak to my heart today!'

We have become so learned and so worldly and so sophisticated and so blase and so bored and so religiously tired that the clouds of glory seem to have gone from us."



taken from Christ the Eternal Son, 108-109.

Ford meets conditions; AFA suspends boycott

It's old news this week, but pretty big news in social conservative circles. I've posted the AFA news release below:

Dear Rodney,

I have some good news for you! AFA is suspending its two year boycott of Ford Motor Company. The conditions of the original agreement presented in fall 2005 have been met. We reached the conclusion that Ford had met the conditions of the agreement based on monitoring for several months. Individuals are free to purchase Ford vehicles again. Your support of the boycott played a key role in convincing Ford to cease its significant support of the homosexual agenda.

During the 24 months the boycott was in effect, Ford sales dropped an average of 8% per month. The boycott was not entirely responsible for the drop in sales, but it played a very significant role. A total of 780,365 individuals signed AFA's Boycott Ford petition. The original agreement contained four items:

1. Ford would not renew current promotions or create future incentives that give cash donations to homosexual organizations based on the purchase of a vehicle.

2. Ford would not make corporate donations to homosexual organizations that, as part of their activities, engage in political or social campaigns to promote civil unions or same-sex marriage.

3. Ford would stop giving cash and vehicle donations or endorsements to homosexual social activities such as Gay Pride parades.

4. Ford would cease all advertising on homosexual Web sites and through homosexual media outlets (magazines, television, radio) in the U.S. with the exception of $100,000 to be used by Volvo. The Volvo ads would be the same ads used in the general media and not aimed at the homosexual community specifically.

A few minor issues remain, and we will continue to bring these to the attention of Ford. But basically Ford has met the terms of the agreement. We are therefore suspending the boycott.

Thank you for caring enough to get involved. If you feel our efforts are worthy of support, would you consider making a small tax-deductible contribution? Click here to make a donation.

Sincerely,

Donald E. Wildmon
Founder and Chairman American Family Association

Richard Baxter on The Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change

"There is no walking uprightly in the dark. Zeal will cause you to go apace [quickly]; but not at all to go right, if judgment guide it not. Erroneous zeal will make you to do evil with double violence . . . No man can do well which he understandeth not well. Therefore you must study and take unwearied pains for knowledge; wisdom never grew up with idleness, though the conceit of wisdom doth no where more prosper. This age hath told us to what dangerous precipices men will be carried by an ignorant zeal."

Richard Baxter, "A Christian Directory", The Practical Works of Richard Baxter, vol. 1 (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2000), 739

ERLC president reacts to ‘Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change’

In a follow up to Monday's post, Iwanted to help circulate the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission President, Dr. Richard Land's statement (included below). I especially appreciate Dr. Land's memory that the 2007 Resolution was amended. I must have been giving my wife some play-by-play.

Dr. Land's statement shows why he, and not others, is the President of the ERLC.



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NASHVILLE, Tenn., March 10, 2008—Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, issued the following statement today regarding the recently released “Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change.”

Land answered questions about the ERLC’s lack of support for the declaration explaining that as an official SBC entity, the ERLC follows the consensus of Southern Baptists on public policy matters as determined by the SBC meeting in session each year.

He also stated, “The ERLC does not agree that Southern Baptists have been ‘too timid’” in addressing the issues of creation care and environmental stewardship.

Land’s statement follows:

“While official Southern Baptist Convention resolutions are not binding on the conscience of any Southern Baptist, they are instructive, particularly to those of us who have the privilege of serving all Southern Baptists through one of the Convention’s official entities.

“One of the responsibilities that accompanies this privilege of serving Southern Baptists is to seek the broadest possible consensus on issues where the Convention has spoken and to encourage change, when it is considered appropriate, through private discussion and dialogue to reach new consensus rather than public critique. We continue to encourage, and to participate in, such dialogues on this issue, as well as many other important issues.

"Southern Baptist public policy advocacy is most effective when it is supported by the broadest possible consensus among Southern Baptists.

“The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission has a Convention-assigned role to express the consensus of Southern Baptists on public policy matters when they have reached such consensus. If the ERLC asserted Southern Baptists were in a different place on an issue than they actually were, we would lose the trust of Southern Baptists, and we would rapidly lose our credibility in Washington as well. Individual Southern Baptists may feel greater latitude in expressing disagreement on issues on which the Convention has spoken than do spokespersons related to official SBC entities.

“The Southern Baptist Convention had an opportunity at its 2007 Convention in San Antonio, Texas, to address this issue in the manner it is addressed in ‘A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change.’ Instead, the Convention’s voting messengers, elected by their local churches, voted approximately 60 to 40 percent to remove the following language from the proposed resolution:

‘RESOLVED, That we encourage continued government funding to find definitive answers on the issue of human-induced global warming that are based on empirical facts and are free of ideology and partisanship; and be it further.
. . .
‘RESOLVED, That we support economically responsible government initiatives and funding to locate and implement viable energy alternatives to oil, reducing our dependence on foreign oil and decreasing the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions; and be it further’

“The officially adopted resolution, minus the above language, is as close to an ‘official’ position as the SBC is capable of making, apart from its formal confession of faith, The Baptist Faith and Message.

“Consequently, in our Convention-assigned role to share faithfully with Washington and other public policy venues where the Convention is on an issue, it would be misleading and unethical of the ERLC to promote a position at variance with the Convention’s expressly stated positions.

“Given the fact the Convention has officially addressed the issues of creation care and environmental stewardship in its 2006 and 2007 Conventions through resolutions adopted by the Convention’s duly elected messengers (see links below to view cited SBC resolutions), the ERLC does not agree that Southern Baptists have been ‘too timid’ in addressing these issues.

“Southern Baptists, collectively and individually, jealously guard their independence and autonomy. They reserve to themselves the right to decide through Convention action what the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy positions are to be. The ERLC will continue to share the officially adopted positions of the Convention with public policy makers and the media. Thus, the ERLC has declined to endorse ‘A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change’ in its present form.”

The Southern Baptist Convention is America’s largest non-Catholic denomination with more than 16.3 million members in over 44,000 churches nationwide. The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission is the SBC’s ethics, religious liberty and public policy agency with offices in Nashville, Tenn., and Washington, D.C.

Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change: More About Contacts than Contents

Today, a new movement within the Southern Baptist Convention was launched. As a former Southern Baptist activist, it caught my eye.

Jonathan Merritt, son of former SBC President James Merritt, a student at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, has organized a “climate change” movement to evidently by-pass the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), one of several Southern Baptist entities, and the one specifically charged with environmental issues.

Sometime over the weekend, the young Merritt offered several news releases and full blown website (very well constructed, I might add) and several influential names attached to his Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change.

Friday, all was well within the SBC[i]. Today, an entire movement has been strategically launched, causing no small uproar. Picking up on the Associated Press story, the New York Times writes the event is “signaling a significant departure from the Southern Baptist Convention’s official stance on global warming”, A CNN headline reads: “Southern Baptist Leaders Shift Position on Climate Change”. The Kansas City Star chronicles "Baptist group rethinks climate change".

Sadly, when you get past all the glitz, there just ain’t much there. The document seems more about connections and contacts then it does about content. I have tried (unsuccessfully) to reign in my sarcasm which will be obvious in my retitling of the Declarations various sections, if not in the commentary itself.

Let’s consider the actual document, which you can read [here].


“Introductory Remarks” or “We want the limelight”

We believe our current denominational engagement with these issues have often been too timid, failing to produce a unified moral voice. Our cautious response to these issues in the face of mounting evidence may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless and ill-informed. We can do better. To abandon these issues to the secular world is to shirk from our responsibility to be salt and light. The time for timidity regarding God’s creation is no more.

The 1970 and 1990 resolutions notwithstanding, the Southern Baptist Convention has spoken to the environment in each of the past 2 years. In this past year’s meeting in San Antonio (2007), resolution No. 5 “On Global Warming” couldn’t have been more direct. The previous year’s meeting in Greensboro (2006) produced Resolution No. 8 “On Environmentalism and Evangelicals”.

I would hardly call these back-to-back resolutions “timid” or a “cautious response”. Just try getting a resolution or motion voted on by the SBC and you’ll see why. I was present for both meetings and am admittedly a bit sketchy on the disposition of these resolutions, but I don’t recall any of the signatories offering amendments to toughen up the “timid” language. Maybe the signers have had a sudden epiphany on issues of the environment. But many of us in the SBC have been addressing these issues formally and (even more forcefully) informally for several years.

Southern Baptists, through the very excellent work of the ERLC, have hardly “abandon[ed] these issues to the secular world.” I cannot believe the above mentioned reference is anything but a slam on the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. These signers are notable leaders within the SBC and know well that the ERLC is charged with environmental issues.

I distinctly remember these signatories did NOT publicly support my motion during the 2005 Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting to increase funding for the ERLC. If they are serious about Southern Baptists addressing environmental issues, they should realize that Southern Baptists are not adequately funding the entity we’ve charged to handle this (and other) issue(s). I would ask them to make increased funding for the ERLC part of their agenda.

I doubt even the ERLC could accurately record the volumnous times its staff or publications have spoken to environment issues in the past 5 or 10 years. I personally sat in a meeting with other State Ethics Leaders in November 2005 and listened to ERLC Vice-President Dr. Barrett Duke speak of the need for us to be more involved with issues of the environment, both as leaders and as a denomination. Dr. Duke is often eclipsed by the ERLC’s President, Dr. Richard Land. Few Southern Baptists realize Duke’s work and influence on our behalf in Washington, DC, but he is one of Southern Baptist’s brighest thinkers and was a signer of the 2004 Sandy Cove Covenant on the environment.

Ironically, Jonathan Merritt has launched a website using the namesake of the organization that issued that covenant. They are creationcare.org. Merritt’s new organization uses baptistcreationcare.org.

I cannot help but to conclude, based on the provocative language of the "Introduction" that those involved with this Declaration are newcomers to the environmental cause and woefully ignorant of the past involvement of the SBC and its ethics leaders on this issue. I welcome them to the fight to be good stewards of God’s earth. I just wish their entry into this battle was a bit more gracious.

Frankly, Southern Baptists do not need an independent entity. They need to adequately fund the entity (read ERLC) they have charged to promote this issue. Organizers of the Declaration should be fully supportive of the ERLC—at the very least with their verbage if not with their money.

Statement 1: “Humans Must Care for Creation and Take Responsibility for Our Contributions to Environmental Degradation.” or “DUH”

There is undeniable evidence that the earth—wildlife, water, land and air—can be damaged by human activity, and that people suffer as a result. When this happens, it is especially egregious because creation serves as revelation of God’s presence, majesty and provision. Though not every person will physically hear God’s revelation found in Scripture, all people have access to God’s cosmic revelation: the heavens, the waters, natural order, the beauty of nature (Psalm 19; Romans 1). We believe that human activity is mixed in its impact on creation—sometimes productive and caring, but often reckless, preventable and sinful.

God’s command to tend and keep the earth (Genesis 2) did not pass away with the fall of man; we are still responsible. Lack of concern and failure to act prudently on the part of Christ-followers reflects poorly to the rest of the world. Therefore, we humbly take responsibility for the damage that we have done to God’s cosmic revelation and pledge to take an unwavering stand to preserve and protect the creation over which we have been given responsibility by Almighty God Himself.

This section is one of the best of the entire documents. It is standard, yet essential, language for any conservative Christian in the environmental movement. Creation can be, and often is, damaged “by human activity.” But what’s this statement of “we humbly take responsibility for the damage that we have done to God’s cosmic revelation”?

I never cared for the corporate repentance language of the SBC during the Resolution on Racial Reconciliation of 1995; yet I got it. Even though a lot of current SBC-ers were northerners and even had abolitionists in their family tree, the SBC itself was formed in a climate of pro-slavery. So even though I had neither a personal nor a geneaological history of racism and no personal need to “apologize to all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime” I understood what the SBC was saying.

But I’d like to know what damage the SBC has caused the environment. If this is intended to be a corporate document, I’d like “the damage that we have done” as Southern Baptists to God’s earth to be documented, listed, cataloged, inventoried, litanized, published and otherwise proclaimed.

But if the signers are being personally penitent, I’m not so sure we need clarification. The confession of Jack Graham pee-ing in a stream spoiling the spawning pools of trout; or of Johnny Hunt using hairspray—that’s spray not pump—sending fluorocarbons into the ozone; or Danny Akin tossing out Diet Pepsi cans along Interstate 440, well let’s just say, some things are better kept to oneself.

I may apologize for the racist past of the SBC, but here I draw the line. The first full chapter of the Bible I memorized was Psalm 19 “The heavens declare the glory of God…” I’m no litter bug. Periodically, I recycle and participate in community litter collections. I always bring out more than I take in on every hike. I was not driving the Exxon Valdez in 1989. And while I don’t chain myself to trees, I love God’s earth and care for it as much as possible.

Statement 2
“It Is Prudent to Address Global Climate Change.” or “Do something, even if it’s wrong!”

We recognize that we do not have any special revelation to guide us about whether global warming is occurring and, if it is occurring, whether people are causing it. We are looking at the same evidence unfolding over time that other people are seeing.

We recognize that we do not have special training as scientists to allow us to assess the validity of climate science. We understand that all human enterprises are fraught with pride, bias, ignorance and uncertainty.

We recognize that if consensus means unanimity, there is not a consensus regarding the anthropogenic nature of climate change or the severity of the problem. There is general agreement among those engaged with this issue in the scientific community. A minority of sincere and respected scientists offer alternate causes for global climate change other than deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.

We recognize that Christians are not united around either the scientific explanations for global warming or policies designed to slow it down. Unlike abortion and respect for the biblical definition of marriage, this is an issue where Christians may find themselves in justified disagreement about both the problem and its solutions.

Yet, even in the absence of perfect knowledge or unanimity, we have to make informed decisions about the future. This will mean we have to take a position of prudence based partly on science that is inevitably changing. We do not believe unanimity is necessary for prudent action. We can make wise decisions even in the absence of infallible evidence.

Though the claims of science are neither infallible nor unanimous, they are substantial and cannot be dismissed out of hand on either scientific or theological grounds. Therefore, in the face of intense concern and guided by the biblical principle of creation stewardship, we resolve to engage this issue without any further lingering over the basic reality of the problem or our responsibility to address it. Humans must be proactive and take responsibility for our contributions to climate change--however great or small.

Well, yes we can make SOME wise decisions about environmental issues. See the DUH statement 1. Don’t litter. Don’t dump your oil in the lake (or even in your yard). Don’t burn old tires. There is a lot we can do using common sense to protect and care for the earth.

But this section is on “Global Climate Change”. This declaration is for something much bigger than recycling aluminum cans and the signers want action, even if that action is wrong. They don’t tell us what action to take, though they hint at following the crowd: “There is general agreement…”

In fact, there is no such general agreement. The Declaration admits “A minority of sincere and respected scientists offer alternate causes for global climate change other than deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels” but then it continues the drumbeat of action, do something NOW, we can’t wait.

The Washington Post carried an excellent article just a few shorts days ago entitled “Global Warming Skeptics Insist Humans Not at Fault”. This argument, too long dominated by Al Gore and his think-a-likes, is beginning to shift. And thoughtful, serious Christians ought to pause and cerebrally weigh the arguments before they act, not after.

If the logic of the Declaration is followed in other fields, then children ought to be educated about the value of homosexuality as the majority of the NEA says; and surely the earth has evolved over millions of years as the majority of biologists say.

The global warming argument has been one-sided, dominated by people with clear agendas. True, objective science is beginning to speak on this issue and what it is saying should slow us down on the issue of global warming, not provoke his to frenzy.

Statement 3
"Christian Moral Convictions and Our Southern Baptist Doctrines Demand Our Environmental Stewardship." or "DUH (part 2) and Ooops".

While we cannot here review the full range of relevant Christian convictions and Baptist doctrines related to care of the creation, we emphasize the following points:

· We must care about environmental and climate issues because of our love for God—“the Creator, Redeemer, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe” (BFM 2000)—through whom and for whom the creation was made. This is not our world, it is God’s. Therefore, any damage we do to this world is an offense against God Himself (Gen. 1; Ps. 24; Col. 1:16). We share God’s concern for the abuse of His creation.

· We must care about environmental issues because of our commitment to God’s Holy and inerrant Word, which is “the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds and religious opinions should be tried” (BFM 2000). Within these Scriptures we are reminded that when God made mankind, He commissioned us to exercise stewardship over the earth and its creatures (Gen. 1:26-28). Therefore, our motivation for facing failures to exercise proper stewardship is not primarily political, social or economic—it is primarily biblical.

· We must care about environmental and climate issues because we are called to love our neighbors, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us and to rotect and care for the “least of these” (Mt. 22:34-40; Mt. 7:12; Mt. 25:31-46). The consequences of these problems will most likely hit the poor the hardest, in part because those areas likely to be significantly affected are in the world’s poorest
regions. Poor nations and individuals have fewer resources available to cope with major challenges and threats. Therefore, “we should work to provide for the orphaned, the needy … [and] the helpless” (BFM 2000) through proper stewardship.

Love of God, love of neighbor and Scripture’s stewardship demands provide enough reason for Southern Baptists and Christians everywhere to respond to these problems with moral passion and concrete action.

I sense the influence of David Copperfield (the magician, not the Dicken’s character). How did we move from a very excellent statement on Baptist doctrines regarding “issues” to the “problems” of the concluding paragraph? I’ve watched Copperfield’s prestidigitation enough to transport such trickery into my logical thinking processes (and they say you can’t learn from a magician!). No léger de main in cards or logic will get me to buy into “problems” with global warming. To unilaterally proclaim there are “problems” in the climate change/global warming issue without any offer of proof may illicit some more signatures on a website, but it won’t hold up to logical scutiny.


Statement 4
"It Is Time for Individuals, Churches, Communities and Governments to Act." or “Well…time to at least think.”

We affirm that “every Christian should seek to bring industry, government and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth and brotherly love” (BFM 2000).

We realize that we cannot support some environmental issues as we offer a distinctively Christian voice in these arenas. For instance, we realize that what some call population control leads to evils like abortion. We now call on these evironmentalists to reject these evils and accept the sanctity of every human person, both born and unborn.

We realize that simply affirming our God-given responsibility to care for the earth will likely produce no tangible or effective results. Therefore, we pledge to find ways to curb ecological degradation through promoting biblical stewardship habits and increasing awareness in our homes, businesses where we find influence, relationships with others and in our local churches. Many of our churches do not actively preach, promote or practice biblical creation care. We urge churches to begin doing so.

We realize that the primary impetus for prudent action must come from the will of the people, families and those in the private sector. Held to this standard of common good, action by government is often needed to assure the health and well-being of all people. We pledge, therefore, to give serious consideration to responsible policies that acceptably address the conditions set forth in this declaration.

Maybe I’m getting tired of my critique. On this statement I say “Here, here.” Though, the declaration might have catalogued more than just the "abortion" problem within the mainstream environmental movement. There are many practices and/or conclusions most conservative Christians would find objectionable.


Conclusion

We the undersigned, in accordance with our Christian moral convictions and Southern Baptist doctrines, pledge to act on the basis of the claims made in this document. We will not only teach the truths communicated here but also seek
ways to implement the actions that follow from them. In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, we urge all who read this declaration to join us in this effort. Laus Deo!

This effort is needlessly confusing. In a time when Southern Baptists need more unity and less division, it is unfortunate this entire episode was not worked out in conjunction with the ERLC.

I am glad for Jonathan Merritt’s passion. Southern Baptist’s need many, many more like him who will move beyond shallow evangelicalism into assertive application of biblical values. And particularly in less popular but equally biblical arenas like creation stewardship/environment (as well as poverty, hunger, persecution, welfare reform, etc), the church needs more, not fewer voices.

I’m glad his father and many of his father’s friends have affirmed this passion. They should have been more discerning of the political fallout this is causing around the nation.

I have no commendation for the SBC’s current President Frank Page. For a sitting president to undermine the work of the convention and of a convention agency, in this case the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, is inexcusable and shameful.

In the end, this blurp has caused more confusion than clarity to the issue of environmental stewardship. It will continue to do so in the days ahead as a great distraction to the work of Southern Baptists.

-----------------

[i] With the exception, of course, of declining baptisms, inflated membership numbers, personal attacks on denominational leaders, division over charismatic issues and doctrine, a growing acceptance of alcoholic consumption, unspiritual leadership, turmoil over missionary appointment policies at the International Mission Board, influence of Emergent doctrine, ecumenism and a recalcitrance of biblical separationism. Otherwise, all was well in the 16.5 million 8 million member denomination.

An Open Letter to Barack Obama

Dr. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, is one of traditional morality’s greatest thinkers. Dr. George has been especially helpful in the realm of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). Some of you will recognize that he serves on the President’s Council on Bioethics.

One of his students, Sherif Gergis, a 2008 Princeton Graduate and Rhodes Scholar, has written an open letter to U.S. Senator Barack Obama on the subject of the protection of unborn human life. Dr. George has asked the letter be given wide distribution.

It is listed below, or can be accessed online at National Review.


The Audacity of Hope
A second-generational query.

By Sherif Girgis


Dear Senator Obama:

As an immigrant from Kenya, your father found new hope in America’s noble principles and vast opportunities. The same promise brought my parents here from Egypt when I was still too young to thank them. Now you have inspired my generation with your vision of a country united around the same ideals of liberty and justice, “filled with hope and possibility for all Americans.”But do you mean it?

As a legislator, you have opposed every effort to protect unborn human life. Shockingly, you even opposed a bill to protect the lives of babies who, having survived an attempted abortion, are born alive. Despite your party’s broad support for legal abortion and its public funding, most Democrats (including Senator Clinton) did not oppose the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. You, however, opposed it. Your vision of America seems to eliminate “hope and possibility” for a whole class of Americans: the youngest and most vulnerable. You would deny them the most basic protection of justice, the most elementary equality of opportunity: the right to be born.

As a prerequisite for any other right, the right to life is the great civil-rights issue of our time. It is what slavery and segregation were to generations past. Our response to this issue is the measure of our fidelity to a defining American principle: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life.”

You have asked me to vote for you. In turn, may I ask you three simple questions? They are straightforward questions of fact about abortion. They are at the heart of the debate. In fairness, I believe that you owe the people you would lead a good-faith answer to each:

1. The heart whose beating is stilled in every abortion — is it a human heart?

2. The tiny limbs torn by the abortionist’s scalpel — are they human limbs?

3. The blood that flows from the fetus’s veins — is it human blood?

If the stopped heart is a human heart, if the torn limbs are human limbs, if the spilled blood is human blood, can there be any denying that what is killed in an abortion is a human being? In your vision for America, the license to kill that human being is a right. You have worked to protect that “right” at every turn. But can there be a right to deny some human beings life or the equal protection of the law?

Of course, some do deny that every human being has a right to life. They say that size or degree of development or dependence can make a difference. But the same was once said of color. Some say that abortion is a “necessary evil.” But the same was once said of slavery. Some say that prohibiting abortion would only harm women by driving it underground. But to assume so is truly to play the politics of fear. A compassionate society would never accept these false alternatives. A compassionate society would protect both mother and child, coming to the aid of women in need rather than calling violence against their children the answer to their problems.

Can we become a society that does not sacrifice some people to help others? Or is that hope too audacious? You have said that abortion is necessary to protect women’s equality. But surely we can do better. Surely we can build an America where the equality of some is not purchased with the blood of others. Or would that mean too much change from politics as usual?

Can we provide every member of the human family equal protection under the law? Your record as a legislator gives a resounding answer: No, we can’t. That is the answer the Confederacy gave the Union, the answer segregationists gave young children, the answer a complacent bus driver once gave a defiant Rosa Parks. But a different answer brought your father from Kenya so many years ago; a different answer brought my family from Egypt some years later. Now is your chance, Senator Obama, to make good on the spontaneous slogan of your campaign, to adopt the more American and more humane answer to the question of whether we can secure liberty and justice for all: Yes, we can.

— Sherif Girgis of Dover, Del., is a senior philosophy major at Princeton University and a 2008 Rhodes Scholar.