The Silence of God

It's enough to drive a man crazy; it'll break a man's faith
It's enough to make him wonder if he's ever been sane
When he's bleating for comfort from Thy staff and Thy rod
And the heaven's only answer is the silence of God

It'll shake a man's timbers when he loses his heart
When he has to remember what broke him apart
This yoke may be easy, but this burden is not
When the crying fields are frozen by the silence of God

And if a man has got to listen to the voices of the mob
Who are reeling in the throes of all the happiness they've got
When they tell you all their troubles have been nailed up to that cross
Then what about the times when even followers get lost?

There's a statue of Jesus on a monastery knoll
In the hills of Kentucky, all quiet and cold
And He's kneeling in the garden, as silent as a Stone
All His friends are sleeping and He's weeping all alone

And the man of all sorrows, he never forgot
What sorrow is carried by the hearts that he bought
So when the questions dissolve into the silence of God
The aching may remain, but the breaking does not
In the holy, lonesome echo of the silence of God

Written by Andrew Peterson; sung by Michael Card

The Invisible Incorporation Doctrine

"That is a violation of my freedom of speech!! Haven't you heard of the First Amendment?!"

How many times have you heard such an exclamation from citizens?   But does the First Amendment really apply? Should it? Read the Bill of Rights. It begins with the words "Congress shall make no law..." and proceeds down the list. What about states? The way the Founders crafted the Constitution was to severely limit the federal government and to leave such things as freedom of speech to the governance of the states.

You see the states could in fact make laws that affected all the areas of the Bill of Rights. They, of course, believed firmly in such things as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. This just gave "elbow" room to the various parts of our country. In different areas of the country, people could tailor their laws to suit their locale. Is this how things are today? The exclamation of the man on the street above is basically right. The Bill of Rights currently is mandated to all the states and uniformity is demanded. A conservative/liberal area of the country must have their laws reflect the law of the whole land. The Bill of Rights now almost entirely applies to the states.

What happened?

In the mid twentieth century the Supreme Court began to shift, one case at a time. They took the Fourteenth amendment (one of the post Civil War Amendments related to slavery and the treatment of blacks) and began to slowly tinker with it. By the present time, they have managed to twist the original meaning of the Fourteenth to usurp virtually all of the Bill of Rights and beyond. Now for example, abortion is allowable in all fifty states regardless of whether a conservative state thinks otherwise. All because of the new fourteenth amendment thinking. They call it the "incorporation doctrine." The slow, steady, and stealthy Supremes have managed to radically change the Constitution to the point that today the common man thinks it was always that way.

It wasn't.

Current Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recognizes this usurpation but does not believe it is possible to undo it. Listen to his words from his book "Reading Law":

"We would...accept as settled law the incorporation doctrine---whereby the Bill of Rights is made applicable to the states...even though it is based on an interpretation of the Due Process Clause that the words will not bear."

Why?

Scalia answers, "Stare decisis--a doctrine whose function is to make us say that which is false under proper analysis must nonetheless be held to be true, all in the interest of stability. Courts cannot consider anew every previously decided question."

If the courts ignored precedent and flipped back and forth from session to session the public would lose confidence in them. The "currency" of the Court is confidence. The people believe by and large that when they speak it is the Constitution speaking. The Court knows this and guards it. It is not reality, of course. It is an illusion they must maintain, a consequence of their judicial interpretative method. I am reminded of a quote by Professor Frankfurter (later a Supreme Court Justice) in a letter to President Franklin Roosevelt in which he said, "People have been taught to believe that when the Supreme Court speaks it is not they who speak but the Constitution, whereas, of course...it is they who speak and not the Constitution."

I probably should, like Scalia, acquiesce to the invisible incorporation doctrine. 

I just can't.

#incorporationdoctine

Ghost of Christmas Past

December 22, 1983.

Turning my memory toward the small town and the boys there the Ghost of Christmas past beckons me follow.

I recognize the streets. Cold rain from the night had frozen but I didn't notice. It was early in the morning and I had somewhere to go. I was starting down the two lane out of town and heading toward a sharp curve but why was the car in front of me going so slowly? Pulling out to pass quickly before the curve the other car suddenly speeds up, matching my speed. Is he trying to kill me?  My 1977 Mazda GLC strains but has nowhere near the power necessary for the task. I slam the brakes pulling behind the car. How could he do that?! I could have been killed! Anger instantly filling my mind I begin to chase the car. I WAS going to pass him. Turn after turn losing ground up the hills but making ground on the downside I pursue. Finally on a long downhill I slip beside the car and begin the pass.

Spinning, spinning. Darkness. Cold. Why am I lying in the grass? What are those people doing in the car? Warm blankets and pain. Writhing on the table my confused bruised mind is shallow. Why is Mr. West here? Saying nothing but grimacing and squeezing his hat.

The Ghost looks down the road. I know where he is going. Snowy hillside part way up just beyond the tree. I hesitate but cannot stop. Why are you tormenting me I scream in my mind! Now I want to stop but it’s too late. Pointing toward the grave marker this gray shadow looks at me. With deep heaviness I remember. I was not alone in the car that day. While anger was flowing through my veins sleep was covering my brothers’ outstretched limbs. Now sleep is all he knows.

On my knees crying out, “Dear God, forgive me!  Let me forgive myself! I have changed. Believe me, see me. I have changed. Anger rules me no more.”

Returning to the present, I see my children as they play.They are excited for Christmas so I stand and sing peacefully to them,

“Silent night, Holy night, all is calm, all is bright…”

“Be not quick in your spirit to become angry, for anger lodges in the bosom of fools.”

Ecclesiastes 7:9

Tombstone Worthy

With the Supreme Court recently agreeing to hear a case addressing the free exercise of religion, Hobby Lobby (and Conestoga Wood) v Sebelius, I could not help but think back to Thomas Jefferson.

Before he died on July 4^th 1826, exactly fifty years after the Declaration of Independence was written, he would direct only three things to be inscribed on his tombstone -- the creator of that very same Declaration, the founder of the University of Virginia, and the author of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. Many Americans today would know the first, some know the second, but few know the last. No doubt more than a small number, who have visited Monticello and looked upon his grave marker, have thought, “No mention of President? What was that Virginia statute about?”

You see, Jefferson was a free thinker. Living in the waning days of authoritarian civil and religious authority, he was among those who would feel the wrath of nonconformity. Often accused of being an atheist or deist    

(charges that remarkably persist to this day), he was in fact neither. He lived a long life and his thoughts changed through the years as he searched for truth. Toward the end of his days, he anticipated his death and looked past it. On April 11^th, 1823, writing to his old friend John Adams, he said, “I join you cordially and await his [God’s] time and will with more readiness than reluctance. May we meet there again, in Congress, with our ancient colleagues, and receive with them the seal of approbation, “Well done, good and faithful servants.” Jefferson repeatedly claimed to be a Christian, believed in the resurrection and looked forward to it. He, however, held what was and still are considered unorthodox even heretical views on various positions. He tried to keep these views secret as it caused him much grief whenever the public became aware of his real or perceived views.

Which brings me back to his tombstone and that law he helped create as a young man in Virginia. Being greatly concerned with obtaining the freedom of conscience, the freedom to think and believe and act on those without fear of retribution, he pressed hard for this law. This was not just a man-made temporary law. It was natural law. A God given law. Listen to the words Jefferson wrote as a 34 year old man in 1777. Words that he would carry with him to his grave:

An Act for establishing religious Freedom.

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;

That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do.

That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be …enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies…yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of a natural right.

Today, out of the thousands of letters he wrote, we remember only one of Jefferson’s quotes and it being misunderstood. The quote was from a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, where Jefferson mentioned a “wall of separation of church and state”. We have forgotten the law he helped pass and had engraved on his tombstone.

The Supreme Court hears the latest assault on the freedom of religion next year. I wonder, will they be the succeeding assembly that declares this right null and void? If they do, like Jefferson I declare:

“The rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of a natural right.”

A right, I must say, that is tombstone worthy.

#Thomas Jefferson #Hobby Lobby#religousfreedom

Engraved with the point of a diamond

Long ago, in 587 BC, a man stood within the walls of a city that was being destroyed because it would not, could not do the right thing. He said with disgust, “From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain. 

All practice deceit. Sin…is written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond: it is graven upon the table of their heart.” His name was Jeremiah.

Fast forward 2,588 years. Has man's basic nature changed?

 In 2001, a company called Enron became enveloped in a scandal that would lead to its demise. The greed and hubris of the executives was finally made known. The supposed watchdog, the auditing firm of Arthur Anderson, was also brought low due to their complicit activity in covering for Enron. In response, a number of laws were passed in an effort to prevent such behavior in the future. One of these changes was to require that certified public accountants, who perform the auditing, undergo proper moral training. It was thought that would prevent what occurred at Arthur Anderson.

Recently, I attended an all-day seminar covering a variety of relevant topics - taxes, rule changes, etc. Many were scrambling to complete their eight hours of required "continuing professional education" before the end of the year so as not to lose their license to practice. I attended with two colleagues. After a couple of hours, one leaned over to me and said, "I am going to step out for a bit. I’ll be back."

The clock ticked and hours went by. Finally, one hour before the end of the day he reappeared. “Had to make a couple long phone calls” he said. Interestingly, the final hour subject ? Ethics. The instructor spoke of right and left turns and of - well - just doing the right thing. My colleague leaned over toward the end and said, “This is all just common sense.” The final session ending he picked up his certificate reading, “Eight Hours of Continuing Professional Education Achieved.”

Smiling, he casually walked out of the hall.

“Sin…is written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond: it is graven upon the table of their heart.”

Some things never change.

The Bicycle Thief

Some time ago, I had watched an old foreign film called, “The Bicycle Thief”. This Italian film, made just after World War II, was about a poor man living in a difficult time who managed to

acquire a bicycle that he needed to work. He understandably treasured his bicycle. While working, someone stole his bike.

He spent the entire film chasing the thief and in the process he began to unravel. He began to abuse other people, including his son that was with him. Finally, in desperation, he himself became that which he abhorred -a bicycle thief.

He had lost not just his bicycle; he had lost his character and the respect of his son.

In an effort to spend quality time with one of my sons, he and I made a return trip to Washington DC. Due to health issues that make walking long distances difficult for me, I knew bringing our bicycles would be the only way I could handle this trip.  

We brought our own bikes and had them chained to a lamppost in front of the National Archives. As we exited the building and rounded the corner, I looked at the lamppost and froze. Recognizing my son’s bike and seeing no other, I was momentarily confused. I walked over and realized that my bicycle had been stolen. Standing there with the cut chain in my hand, anger began rising up in me—

Here? All of these people walking back and forth and someone had the audacity to cut the chain and just ride away?

My son instantly looked concerned. “Are we going to have to go home now?” he asked. “Can we find who stole it?” He knew my difficulty walking long distances and with the loss of my bike he presumed that would require our leaving. Disappointment flooded his face. In response to his questions, I looked down and, hesitating for a moment, the long narrative of the movie flashed through my mind...

Some time ago I had watched an old foreign film called “The Bicycle Thief”. This was an Italian film made just after World War II about a poor man living in a difficult time who managed to acquire a bicycle that he needed to work. He understandably treasured his bicycle. While working someone stole his bike.

He understandably treasured his bicycle. While working someone stole his bike.

He spent the entire film chasing the thief and in the process he began to unravel. He began to abuse other people,

began to abuse his only son that was with him and finally in

desperation he himself became that which he abhorred, a bicycle thief.

He had lost not just his bicycle he had lost his character and the respect of his son.

My momentary hesitation now past, I looked up at my son and said, “No, Ben, that hurts, but it is just a bike. We can take turns walking and riding."

We then proceeded to spend the remainder of the afternoon enjoying our time together smiling and laughing.

Bicycle gone, but this time at least, character and son maintained.

That Name

Speaking just hours before He would depart from this world, He gave His final words of advice to his followers, saying,

“Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you… But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.  I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

In the past two thousand years that Name, Jesus Christ, has caused denouncements, derision, division, and death. Even in America that Name has prompted fulfillment of its author’s prediction.

This past November 6th, the division caused by that Name managed to find its way into the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court. In the case Town of Greece v Galloway, two citizens filed suit demanding to end the regular prayer that this local municipality made prior to its proceedings.

Well, not exactly.

They recognized that the tradition of legislative prayer, from the inception of the Republic to the present, was unbroken. The clear precedent having been set from a prior case (Marsh v Chambers 1983), the lawyers knew that to claim that this act of prayer was a violation of the establishment of religion clause in the First Amendment would not work. So, if the act of praying could not be made an issue, then what?

Well, if you cannot stop the prayer the next best thing would be to make the prayer so innocuous and unoffensive that it would effectively cease to be a prayer. The Justices however would have none of this. When the attorney for Galloway asserted this necessity, they responded this way:

JUSTICE ALITO: Alright. Give me an example. Give me an example of a prayer that would be acceptable to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus. Give me an example of a prayer, Wiccans, Baha'i...

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And atheists.

JUSTICE SCALIA: And atheists. Throw in atheists, too.

Not surprisingly the attorney never gave an example.

What was really the issue here? Let’s go back to the outset of the arguments.

At the very beginning of the proceedings Justice Elena Kagan suggested a hypothetical prayer that invoked the name of Jesus Christ and asked if it would be permissible. The court debated for an hour. Near its close she asked the attorney for Galloway:

“Isn't the question mostly here in most communities whether the kind of language that I began with, which refers repeatedly to Jesus Christ…

will be allowed in a public town session like this one. That's really the question, isn't it?”

The attorney for Galloway responded, 

“That's the issue that actually arises in the case.”

Ahh—there we have it. THAT NAME.

What is it about that name that causes such consternation? Remember the words of Jesus long ago, 

“If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.” 

Those who know the truth about Jesus know that sin, their sin, is made front and center with that man. And that is unacceptable. 

“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” 

They know His claim to truth was exclusive. And that is intolerable. So they try and have that Name banished from government proceedings.

The Supreme Court is expected to announce its decision next spring. What will they decide? I, for one, will be praying they retain this freedom to pray as we see fit and I will be doing so praying the only way I know how:

In the Name of Jesus Christ.