All posts by Camp Director

Commentary, The Vote

Ron Paul; The WYSIWIG Candidate

2 Comments

Voting MachineFor those of you who aren’t completely computer jargon savvy, my apologies. WYSIWIG stands for “what you see is what you get.”

After watching the Republican presidential debates on January 5th, a friend of mine has decided he knows how to get Ron Paul elected to the presidency.

He has watched Paul’s performances in several of the debates and analyzed what’s wrong with his home-spun approach to the presidential race and proposed a surefire approach to woo the modern American electorate that is tested, tried and true.

According to my friend…

…Ron Paul needs to take about $500,000 of the monies he has and invest in a marketing firm. He needs to memorize and practice his answers and he needs to work on developing some responses that don’t always end in constitution (sic).

He also needs to take another half million and hire a marketing research firm. In my humble opinion he really needs to know what the public is looking to hear…

…Ron Paul is not sending a clear message and it is not a confident one. That has to change and quickly!!!!!

He needs to hire those two firms, lock himself in a room with them for three weeks and THEN address the public. He also needs to hire a pr (sic) man to head up the frontal assail…

In other words, my friend thinks Ron Paul should transform himself into the other Republican (and Democrat, for that matter) presidential candidates. This is, of course, the stock in trade of the modern political consultant; make the candidate as physically attractive as possible, have him memorize a list of stock populist answers that are to be regurgitated anytime questions with certain sequences of words are strung together by reporters, anchorettes, political bloggers, etc. Candidates under the tutelage of the political consultant are warned never, ever, EVER to delve into controversial subjects and to stick to the script, lest the candidate actually have to think about his answer, as if most modern media types were capable of tripping up the modern political consultant honed and polished candidate. Political consultants guide candidates “right” or “left” of their current positions on issues chosen to appeal to the majority of voters in a given party for primary season then toward the “center” to appease the majority of voters of both parties or neither party for general elections. Of course, these designations (right, left, center) are constantly moving targets in accordance with the will and whim of the electorate, the very definition of the “democratic” process. One election cycle’s “left” or “right” may be the last cycles “center.”

My friend is convinced that a wash, wax and buff of Ron Paul’s image and a disconnection, rhetorically at least, from the highest law of the land, the Constitution, will get him the Republican nomination and he might be right, but then what? In order to understand this question we have to see where my friend is wrong.

First, he thinks that Paul has to stop talking about the Constitution. Stop talking about the Constitution? How can he do this? It is the very core, the soul if you will, of his message and his approach to government. So what polished populist phraseology could one employ to convey a message about say… hard money? What quickie sound byte would convey the message about rising prices in terms of the hidden taxation of fiat money? What polished phrase or phrases would a consultant give to Paul to explain in 30 seconds or less (and preferably 15 or less) the Madisonian constitutional concept of divided sovereignty or designated powers? How could Paul explain in a few well-crafted words, without mentioning the Constitution, his opposition to socialized retirement Ponzi schemes like Social Security and the proposed nationalized health care system? How could Paul put his opposition to undeclared wars and military incursions with a few well-timed and cleverly phrased sentences without the US Constitution as the reference anchor?

The answer is that it cannot be done. The Constitution that every voter claims to love as the document that guarantees his individual rights and yet is woefully ignorant of, is the anchor chain that ties our government to the rock solid foundation of law. Potential Paul voters who ignore it, disparage it, claim it is a “living and flexible” document or are simply bored by it adopt these positions at their own peril. Paul can no more detach his message of limited government from the Constitution than an evangelist can be used to bring elect sinners to God by detaching their efforts from God’s law. Without the Constitution there are no limits on government; without God’s law there is no measurement of sin.

This comparison with modern antinomian practices of politics and evangelism is not merely a passing coincidence. It is really a window into the mindset of the majority of evangelical Christian Americans, both those involved in politics and those who are not. As my friend says in his post…

…I’m a constitutionalist but I’m also a realist and understand that IMAGE is everything. After all this is a popularity contest, right???

Personally I think that this is what is holding him back. I’m not necessarily talking about physical image but the image he portrays. I like many others feel that he has a good message but to the voting populous (sic). . not so much.

This is a very revealing quote. My friend is not really very different in his thinking from the majority of Christian Americans and I am not writing this to belittle him or his thoughts, but to analyze his ideas in the light of biblical principle, which I believe should govern all aspects of government- self, family, church and civil. Unfortunately, what underlies the sentiment expressed in this quote is the false idea that both the concept of constitutionalism and salvation can be peddled to a potential convert by using just the right sales presentation. And since the cause is just, any method that works is acceptable. The end justifies the means, as it were.

If the candidate or pastor is just handsome, funny and/or engaging enough; if he uses just the right words, with just enough meaning to give a vague picture of what he is selling which the imagination of the hearer can fill in as he sees fit; if the message has just the right amount of (down to and including no) talk of constitutional limits, rights and responsibilities or Jesus, sin and hell; if just the right combination can be found then the convert will fall into the candidate or evangelists hands like a ripe fruit. If a candidate or evangelist needs to obscure or hide unpleasant or difficult to explain parts of the agenda in order to sell it to the most people then so be it. The converts will eventually osmose those missing details and thank you for lying about it when it’s all over and done. Or more likely, they’ll feel suckered, again, swear that the candidate or evangelist is nothing but a sweet talking swindler, out for his own power or gain and walk away forever. In politics as in evangelism, the soft sell minus the cold hard facts of the consequences of failing to act according to law yields false converts who fall away after the first emotional rush has worn off or the first trouble arises.

All of the men and women running for president have a track record. Their performances can be checked against their rhetoric. My friend thinks Paul isn’t sending a “clear message or a confident one.” And yet his congressional record speaks volumes about his adherence to the principles he espouses. We would challenge you to compare Ron Paul’s floor votes against the delegated powers and authorities reserved to Congress in the Constitution. If you can find one that violates the explicit intent of the Constitution we will be shocked. Not so for ANY of the other candidates.

And Paul has done this to the detriment of his political career. Republican leaders have, at least twice, attempted to displace him from his House seat with back room Republican party shenanigans and failed twice. Paul cannot get the choice committee assignments that 10 termers can normally count on because he won’t sell his principles down the river for personal gain. Sounds very clear and confident to us.

I’m hearing complaints that Ron Paul doesn’t look good enough or just isn’t projecting a “presidential image.” On one blog that I frequent, a poster said that Paul resembled “Ross Perot on prunes” in the last debate. Well, he’s not as pretty as Mitt Romney or John Edwards, but he’s no Quasimodo or Ross Perot, either. The insistence on sleek looks to go with a golden tongue is yet another sign that Americans are more impressed with style than substance and convinced that this is what is necessary to win. This isn’t a new problem. The book of 1 Samuel in the Bible recounts the selection of Saul as king of Israel. “Give us a king to judge us” was the cry of the people, but God understood what was really happening. He tells Samuel “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.” The 10th chapter of 1 Samuel shows that the people wanted a kingdom over a republic and liked Saul, a truly awful king, because he looked like they thought a king should look.

If Paul heeds advice like this then he will lose his core support. Not if he hires someone to change his suit or tie selection or maybe to polish his delivery a little or minor details like that. But if he allows himself to be manipulated into talking in sound bytes and platitudes and abandons the Constitution as the pivot point of his message, then he’s finished. Real constitutionalists don’t care what Paul looks like or that he may not be as slick in his presentation of his platform as other candidates. They’ve had a bellyfull of gold-tongued glad-handers who make vague pledges to either enrich us from the public coffers or put an end to the nanny state, depending on the crowd with no regard to constitutional authority to do what’s been promised. What they do care about is Paul’s 10-term congressional record which unequivocally shows that Ron Paul cares about the limits imposed on government and the enforcement of those limits as they effect individual rights. The bottom line is that the Ron Paul that you see is the one that you get. And that ain’t bad.

Commentary, The Church

48 Hours: Mystery- A Christmas Night Sucker Punch For The Faithful

The Crumbling ChurchWinding down from a day of joyous celebration of the birth of the Savior of the world with family and food, my wife and I made the mistake of tuning in CBS’s 48 Hours: Mystery. The mystery being investigated in this episode is, appropriately, the events surrounding the birth of Jesus Christ. Go here for a transcript of the program.

Why a mistake you ask? First, have you ever noticed that news outlets seem to think that the “balance” provided in a “balanced report” is three to five scholars and/or experts who represent the side the reporter or producer of the report have already chosen as the correct presentation versus usually one scholar, expert or ranting lunatic (depending on how much bias the reporter/producer feels comfortable revealing)? CBS’ 48 Hours is certainly no exception to this unwritten but undeniable rule. On the side of the those who deny that there was anything miraculous about the birth of Jesus were noted apostate “scholars” John Dominick Crossan (Jesus Seminar member), Elaine Pagels, the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University and an adherent to second century Gnostic heresies and Michael White a “New Testament scholar” from the University of Texas who thinks that the 4 Gospels contain lots of “creative writing.” On the side of biblical truth was Ben Witherington, Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary.

As could be expected Crossan, Pagels and White got the bulk of air time. That’s not necessarily a bad thing since much of what they proposed was contradictory, not to mention openly heretical, at least to anyone passingly familiar with the Bible and specifically the Christmas narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Witherington, on the other hand gave a thoughtful and reasonable explanations for supposed “contradictions” in the narratives. These “contradictions” were never actually listed or presented in any coherent form, their existence was merely asserted. He also debunked legends associated with famous sites associated with the birth of Christ. Crossan, Pagels and White could not agree where and when Christ was born. Witherington showed that the “where” of Christ’s birth was well documented and the when was also fairly well known.

The “contradictions” that the three Nativity doubters cite include the fact that shepherds appear in the story only in the Gospel of Luke while the magi appear only in the Gospel of Mark. Michael White put it this way

“When you start looking at them and realize that you can’t make the way you heard it come out the same way, you have to ask, ‘Wait a minute, what’s going on here?’”

Of course, what’s going on here is that this is the same story told from different perspectives. There’s nothing that excludes Luke’s details in Mark’s Gospel or vice versa. But it’s interesting to see how the CBS producers twist facts to create the illusion of “contradictions.” From the transcript-

And most scholars agree that each Gospel author tailored his argument to fit his target audience.

Of course this is true but there’s another, better explanation for this than the conspiratorial fantasy proposed in the program. As anyone who has listened to eyewitness testimony will tell you, different people who were in different places with different vantage points and different ways of memorizing things give testimonies with different levels and types of detail. Matthew was a Jew, a Levite and a tax collector (a pariah in Jewish society). John was a very young Jew. Luke was a Greek physician and Mark was apparently a North African whose Gospel is thought to have been taken from Peter’s teaching. Why would anyone expect these diverse human beings, inspired by God, to tell exactly the same stories with exactly the same details? As parents, if we got testimonies like this from our children about some incident at home, we would instantly suspect that the stories had been harmonized before being told to us, wouldn’t we? What we should realistically expect is the same basic facts with very different detail, exactly what we see in the Gospels.

Crossan and, judging from this interview, White are working from a viewpoint that the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) were written from the fictional but nevertheless legendary (at least amongst certain biblical “scholars”) Q document. The Q document is supposedly a lost text from which the three writers who call themselves Matthew, Mark and Luke took their accounts. This is textual criticism carried out to its logical absurdity. Since Crossan and White (and obviously Pagels) believe that neither Matthew, Mark, Luke or John could possibly have been written the Gospels attributed to them then it follows that ALL manuscripts must have been taken from a theoretical single account with “creative writing” elements adding details. All three of these scholars, based on their presuppositional rejection of Christ as Son of God, reject the idea that these may be actual eyewitness accounts of Christ’s disciples (Matthew, John and possibly Luke) or transcripts of eyewitness accounts (Mark and Luke).

All three of the anti-Nativity scholars use their rejection of the biblical accounts as the pivot point on which revolves their rejection of Christ as Son of God. Crossan and White question whether Christ was born in Bethlehem and believe He was born in Nazareth. They offer no real proof but speculate openly on the basis of their rejection of the truthfulness of the Gospel accounts. Elaine Pagels, for instance said-

The Gospel of Phillip basically implies that Jesus had biological parents as we do. It’s not a literal truth that Jesus was born from a mother impregnated by the Spirit. But, rather, one has to understand that as a metaphor for the divine process of rebirth that takes place when we’re born again spiritually.

The Gospel of Phillip is not a Gospel at all, of course. It is a Gnostic forgery dating from somewhere between the second and fourth centuries. Much of the DaVinci Code heresies are pinned to the Gospel of Phillip. Pagels insists that it be given the same weight as the New Testament Gospels and Epistles because she is invested in second and third century Gnostic feminism, not because she can prove that they were contemporaneous to the Gospel accounts. She believes she doesn’t need to do this because she rejects scholarship placing the writing of the New Testament in the mid to late first century.

On and on these Christ doubters go, questioning everything, not based on eyewitness accounts or other concrete evidence but upon their materialistic presuppositions that these things just could not have happened as they were told to us in the Gospel accounts. Dr. Witherington does a stand up job defending the Gospel accounts and it seems that perhaps CBS erred in presenting only one conservative scholar. Under these circumstances the conservative viewpoint was presented as coming from a unified front, while the skeptical claims were presented as being haphazard and random, the result of scholarly infighting and ego driven insistence regarding whose theory of the real story was the more scientifically plausible and in the case of Elaine Pagels more politically correct in its Gnostric feminist approach.

All in all, it was a wretched thing to run on Christmas night (or any night, for that matter) but a Christian voice for truth, in the form of Dr. Ben Witherington, rung out loud and clear in contrast to the sour notes of the baseless criticisms of the naturalistic naysayers and feminist fault finders. CBS should be ashamed, not just for for attempting to deliver a black eye to Christianity, but also for doing it so ineptly. We serve a sovereign and almighty God who will not be mocked.

Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, The Church

Christian Charlatans or Swindling Senators- Which Is Worse?: Update

The Crumbling ChurchAn editorial in January’s Christianity Today reveals that, uncharacteristically, CT gets it! Surprisingly, CT asks all of the right questions about the motivations of Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley in his “investigation” into the finances of famous health and wellness gospel preachers and seems to get all of the right answers.

That is, they see that this a sitting Senator’s attempt to directly interfere in a church doctrine (health and wellness doctrine) that he does not like. We agree that the health and wellness doctrine, that teaches that monetary wealth and health are direct indicators of the measurement of a persons faith, is aberrant.

We disagree with Senator Grassley, that the federal government has any jurisdiction in the matter at all. Don’t misunderstand. We think fraud is a crime. There is no fraud involved in health and wellness doctrine teaching. We think these preachers believe what they are teaching, to their eternal peril. The first amendment to the Constitution is very clear on the subject; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” Doctrinal discipline is for Christ’s Church to perform, not an overreaching federal leviathan. Grassley is attempting to make political hay by implying a threat of force to change church doctrine.

This is a very dangerous precedent. It’s time for Christians to speak out on this now!

Events

Restoring The Dream- One Day Conference Coming To Columbus

This is coming from Citizens For Community Values

One-day conference will equip you to teach the values of marriage.

We know the truth. Decades of research confirm it. A man and a woman committed to lifelong marriage are better off in so many respects – happier and healthier. Their children, more likely to succeed.

But our culture is telling our young people a lie – the lie that safe sex trumps abstinence and the dream of a lifelong marriage is unattainable.

You can!

A one-day conference presented by the Abstinence and Marriage Education Partnership is dedicated to equipping you with the tools to teach the young people in your circle of influence the benefits of abstinence and marriage.

“Restoring the Dream” will be presented in Columbus at the Crowne Plaza North on Wednesday, February 6, 2008.

Distinguished presenters include Scott Phelps, Maggie Gallagher, Glenn Stanton and Rozario Slack.

Parents of teens and young adults, educators, youth pastors, counselors, youth workers – all are encouraged to attend. We all need the teaching tools that this conference provides.

To learn more about the conference or to register, click here.

If only you could reach them with the truth!

Commentary, Public Policy Principles News

Report: A Gathering of Eagles

It is difficult to imagine where else a Christian activist, in a single weekend no less, could-

  • Explain what’s wrong with the laughably misnamed “fair tax” to an otherwise well informed and viable candidate for Congress

  • Watch as a group of well-known pastors and Christian activists completely fail to answer the question “can you define existentialism and cultural Marxism?”… at a Christian worldview conference!

  • Engage in a spirited discussion with a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination about whether or not the President and Congress can surrender US sovereignty to the UN via the treaty mechanism described in article VI of the US Constitution (They can’t. The candidate disagrees)

  • Sell a respectable number of Reformed and Covenantal Theology themed books (not to mention having one stolen- from a church foyer) in a gathering overwhelmingly populated by self-described hyper-Arminian Open Theists, full and semi-Pelagians and Pre-millenial Dispensationalists

    • That is only some of what I recently experienced at the recent Gathering of Eagles event in Warsaw and Coshocton OH, December 14 & 15, 2007.

    While part of this meeting was a leadership summit involving several Christian groups, the Institute For Principled Policy was not a direct participant in these activities, nor were we invited to be a part of any of the leadership summit activities. Institute representatives were there as observers.

    Being both a veteran attender and teacher at Christian worldview seminars and conferences, I had rather high expectations regarding what I would see and hear. To be sure there were some excellent presentations on subjects that one would expect to see at a Christian worldview event. But also be sure that there were probably at least an equal number of presentations that could only be described as “fire and brimstone” revival sermons, complete with high-decibel (not to mention high dudgeon) bellowing for repentance and Finney-ish alter calls. Not the usual fare at worldview events.

    One excellent presentation was given by E. Ray Moore of the Exodus Mandate Project. Moore’s Power Point presentation on the rapidly fading Christian worldviews of Christian children educated in public schools vs. those educated in home and Christian schools was an eye-opening presentation. The Institute For Principled Policy is currently working to make closer ties with the Exodus Mandate. Watch for details.

    Other fine presentations in the Christian worldview category were given by Mark Harrington of the mid-western office of the Center For Bioethical Reform, who informed us of his efforts related to the GAP (Genocide Awareness Project) and his “truth trucks.”

    Pastor Joe Larson of What’s Right What’s Left Ministries also gave an all too quick survey of Christian worldview education and understanding competing worldviews.

    Another excellent presentation was given by Pastor Rick Scarborough of Vision America. It was his testimony of the circumstances which drug him into the political arena and demonstrated to him that there is no neutrality in issues which effect our homes, families, communities, states and nation. Every pastor should hear Dr. Scarborough give this testimony!

    James Hartline gave testimony regarding his journey into the depths of homosexuality, drug abuse and addiction, disease and prison followed by his salvation and his calling of God to help guide others out of the lifestyle of disease, depravity and death by the light of Jesus Christ. James has been very active in the San Diego homosexual community, managing to be a leader in closing several bath houses and other sexually oriented businesses in his community. He is also active in helping to save the Mt. Soledad Cross.

    Pastor Mark Holich gave a presentation on the use of the IRS as a gag for the mouths of pastors and para-church ministries through the abuse of the 501(c)3 “rules.”

    Finally, Dr. Alan Keyes, the headliner of the conference who also happens to be a Republican presidential candidate, gave a presentation in which he pointed out that the US is currently rapidly changing from a republic to a democracy. Unfortunately, Dr. Keyes revealed that his understanding of the definition of a republic is at least somewhat flawed. He began at the Declaration of Independence as the philosophical underpinnings of the US Constitution. In this he is correct. The Constitution cannot be understood except in the context of what is written in the Declaration. Where Keyes went astray was his insistence on quoting Abraham Lincoln, the President who, arguably, fashioned the democratic noose with which the founders’ republic has been strangled. He insisted in building a bridge between the Declaration of Independence and Lincoln’s prevarication regarding his purpose in waging the War Between The States from the Gettysburg Address

    …that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth (emphasis added).

    Can there be a better definition of government unchained from the rock anchor of higher authority and replaced with “the will of the people” in the guise of a just avenger bringing a “new birth of freedom?” Rhetoric sound familiar? Isn’t that nearly identical to the spiel coming from the current occupant of the White House about events in Iraq even now?

    We will further discuss Dr. Keyes presentations in the light of dinner conversation in a moment but we must endeavor to complete a report on the second day of the Gathering of Eagles.

    In the afternoon presentations were delivered by several well known and not so well known Christian activists. Peter La Barbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality talked about efforts to expose what actually happens at San Francisco’s infamous Folsom St. Festival. He explained that local, state and national authorities have worked diligently to keep the details of this sanctioned public street debauch from the public at large, knowing the revulsion that would be generated.

    Lt. Col. James Klingenschmidt gave a blow-by-blow description of his ordeal over praying in the name of Jesus Christ while in his Navy uniform. The story is quite stunning in its entirety, involving his disobedience of direct orders from superiors up to and including the Chief of Naval Operations. Klingenschmidt is currently petitioning for reinstatement. Please contact the Institute if you are interested in signing one of these petitions.

    Pastor Ernie Sanders of What’s Right What’s Left Ministries gave an excellent summary of the Marxist worldview, how it remains alive, well, active and entrenched in many institutions, both public and private. Ernie always gives a great presentation and is a perfect example of leadership by doing. He is pastor of a large congregation in Geauga County OH, is head of the Geauga County Right To Life, is a radio talk show host and is quite active in his community.

    Tom Condit, an Ohio attorney in private practice for the Rutherford Institute gave a presentation on his and the Rutherford Institute’s efforts to help protect free speech. Condit has been involved in several important cases involving suits against Planned Paenthood’s provision of abortions to minors without parental consent, defending Christians who protest against strip clubs and porn shops, etc.

    Following this presentation There were several that I listened to from our booth in the foyer. Essentially, they were the same presentation, slightly rearranged, delivered in a variety of tones, from fiery to mild. All called for repentence and a national return to Christ. The presenters included the Rev. Flip Benham of Operation Save America, author and independent presidential candidate Peter Grasso and Dr. Mark Kiser, president of Asleep kNOw More Ministries. Dr. Patrick Johnston of the Association of Pro-life Physicians gave another excellent presentation his efforts to promote the pro-life cause and educate physicians so that they will no longer perform abortions.

    What followed was one of the most interesting dinner breaks in memory. It was relatively uneventful until nearly the end. Many of the participants in the rally were seated together in a buffet style restaurant. Towards the end of the meal it became quite obvious that Dr. Keyes was becoming agitated about his participation in the recent Republican presidential debate in Iowa, and rightfully so. This exchange may shed some light on what was eating Keyes. Listen to the exchange on global warming and especially the “Doctor, heal thyself” comment beginning around the 4:00 mark. Several claim that Dr. Ron Paul made this remark while others claim it was Tom Tancredo. In any case it clearly agitated Dr. Keyes and he was still feeling the sting 3 days later.

    I was sitting with an Institute colleague in the next table. My colleague was wearing a “Ron Paul for President” t-shirt over his sweater and Dr. Keyes, who was sitting with Lt. Col. Klingenschmidt, began getting louder and louder in editorializing about Ron Paul to other members of the group. It was the standard Republican Party Ron Paul name calling mantra- “isolationist,” “foreign policy amateur,” “doesn’t understand the Constitution” and possibly the worst, that Dr. Paul was “not really pro-life” because he is a federalist on the abortion and euthenasia question. Both Keyes and Klingenschmidt insisted that Paul said he would have allowed Terri Schiavo to “starve and dehydrate” rather than to intervene based on his Values Voters Debate answers. Of course, they missed the point that Paul’s answers could only be understood in light of Paul’s legislative efforts like the “Sanctity of Life Act” which declares unborn infants to be human beings then returns the questions of abortion and euthanasia to the states and strip federal judges of the authority to hear cases on the subject, thus no longer would abortion be a constitutionally protected “right.”

    Finally, Dr. Keyes approached our table and my colleague asked him if he thought we should be in the UN and whether the UN should be in the United States. Keyes said he thought that we probably shouldn’t be in the UN but that there was nothing that we could do to get out nor were we able to evict them from US soil due to treaty obligations and the fact that treaties become the highest law of the land. I pointed out that article VI of the Constitution militated against his position, since no treaty could be legally made except that they be subordinate to the constitutional rights, duties and obligations as outlined in the Constitution itself. Dr. Keyes implied that I didn’t know what I was talking about and I asked if he’d read Madison on the subject, since Madison was clear that no treaty could supercede the Constitution (at this point, clearly out of his element, Lt. Col. Klingenschmidt beat a hasty retreat). Dr. Keyes admitted that this was true but said it was simply not a practical interpretation of the Constitution for today’s world. In other words, he adopted a “living document” interpretation of article VI of the US Constitution. Keyes constitutional interpretation gets very interesting in light of events as the evening progresses.

    Frankly, I did not listen closely to several of the speakers after the dinner break, since much of what was said was more of the same revival style presentation. I don’t have any problem with revivals. I don’t think that worldview seminars are where they should be held. I think you would have been hard pressed to find anyone in the audience that did not think that America needs repentence and a return to the message of Christ to regain God’s favor as a nation. I would be willing to wager however, that there were plenty of people in the audience who desperately needed to know how to combine efforts to spread the Gospel of Christ while being an influence in steering the culture in a Christlike manner and the biblical basis for doing so.

    I did pay attention to Dr. Alan Keyes closing speech. What made this speech so interesting was Dr. Keyes made an impassioned and complex logical argument against the income tax based on original intent of the Constitution’s framers, especially the 10th amendment. Note that I said “original intent.” During Dr. Keyes demonstration of his logical capabilities I leaned over to my colleague and pointed out that it was too bad that he had been unable to apply the same logic or constitutional hermeneutic in our discussion of the UN and article VI of the Constitution. Two diametrically opposite methods of interpreting the Constitution, original intent and “living document approach,” in a 4 hour period is pretty bad, even for an accomplished politician like Alan Keyes and it says a lot of what you could expect from him as president.

    All in all, it was a good but not a great conference, as it could have been.

Prayer Request

Special Prayer Request

Prayer RequestOur Chairman, Dr. Mark Hamilton, is once again facing a grave health crisis. He is currently experiencing some kind of heart failure and is on a ventilator in the Cleveland Clinic ICU.

Please pray fervently for Mark’s recovery and also for his wife, Pat, and the rest of his family who are feeling the strain during this holiday season which is a time of joy for many of the rest of us.

Thank you in advance for your prayers!