Posted by: gmscan | March 26, 2015

Recent Books

As you know, I am an avid reader. I get most of my information from the printed page, and I like my books printed so I can make marginal notes, underline, and dog ear them. I don’t worry about preserving the binding. I CONSUME books.

Since I came to Christ I have been reading Christian books a whole lot. I will discuss a few below. But now and then I try to take a break and read something completely different. So, the last time I was at Sam’s Club a book by Dean Koontz popped out at me. I like Dean Koontz a lot. He has replaced Steven King as my favorite horror author. I like his Odd Thomas series and have read most of those. But this book is called “The City,”  and Koontz hasn’t written much about urban environments. Most of his settings are suburban or rural. So I thought it would be interesting.

It is. It’s a fun read, which I won’t bother describing here. Except for one thing – I may try to escape Jesus, but He won’t let me. Not that this book is explicitly Christian, but one of the essential characters is an angel called Miss Pearl by the protagonist, a boy named Jonah Kirk. She feeds him prophetic dreams, leads him to his gift, which is piano playing, and bolsters him when he needs it most. Here’s an example –

She sat silently beside me for a while. Then: “If you trust me, believe what I’m about to say, it’ll help you in the darkest times.”

Speaking into my hands, I said, “What is it?”

“No matter what happens, disaster piled on calamity, no matter what, everything will be okay in the long run.”

I spread my fingers to filter my words. “You said you can’t see the future.”

“I’m not talking about the future, Ducks. Not the way you mean. Not tomorrow and next week and next month.”

Frustrated, I said, “Then what are you talking about?”

She repeated, “No matter what happens, everything will be okay in the long run. If you believe that, if you trust me, nothing might happen in the days to come to break you. On the other hand, if you won’t take to heart what I’ve just told you, I don’t expect things will turn out as well as they could.”

This is a conversation that might have taken place between Jesus and Paul before he set out to convert the Gentiles. It is a truth known by the Egyptian Christians who were beheaded by ISIS. It is true for all of us believers. No matter what happens, everything will be okay in the long run.

This was supposed to be a break from my Christian reading. Oh, well. So what are the Christian books I was taking a break from?

Well, I read Charles Colson’s “The Sky is Not Falling.” This was Colson’s last book before his death. It is meant to buck up Christians as they deal with the growing secular attacks on Christianity in the United States. I learned a lot here, especially about some of the recent court decisions. One example was a 2006 ruling by a federal judge against Colson’s Prison Fellowship. The judge decided that evangelical Christianity is somehow not protected by the First Amendment because it is a fringe cult distinct from other Christian faiths such as Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Greek Orthodoxy, and other denominations such as Lutheranism, and Presbyterians. He said it tends to be “anti-sacramental” downplaying “baptism, holy communion or Eucharist, marriage, (and) ordination…” Colson comments that his Baptist friends will be quite surprised to hear this.

Colson urges Christians to reassert orthodoxy, work to change the culture and the political climate, and most of all live fruitful lives within their own communities. These sound like pretty thin remedies, except for the knowledge, as Dean Koontz wrote above, that everything will work out in the end. God guarantees it.

But Colson references quite a few other books and that is how I came across “God’s Battalions,” by Rodney Stark. This is a detailed history of the Crusades and my reading it was timely given President Obama’s citation of the Crusades as equivalent to Islamic terrorism at the National Prayer Breakfast. He was, of course, wrong as I describe in my write-up in The Federalist.

Then I needed something more uplifting. Fortunately my wife, Nancy, had bought me “The Grave Robber,” by Mark Batterson for Christmas, and that was just what I needed. It is very well written and uses the seven miracles of Christ as described in John’s Gospel as a jumping off point. He then describes how reflections of these miracles still happen all around us today. I talked my men’s group into studying this book, so I get to read it again.

Speaking of Nancy, I also read her new book Mikha’el  several times as she was writing it. This is the best thing she’s ever written. It is the story of a young girl who has prophetic and disturbing dreams that seem to come true too often. As she grows, she comes to realize that she is being guided by the Archangel Michael who has protected her from harm her entire life so she can play a critical role in the coming battle between good and evil.

I then turned to “Unbroken,” by Laura Hillenbrand.  Here’s another book I didn’t expect to be particularly Christian and I thought I would check it out since the movie was so well reviewed. It is, of course, the heroic story of Louis Zamparini, an Olympic running star who becomes a flier in the Pacific Theater in World War Two. He is captured by the Japanese and has a horrific experience in their POW camps. I haven’t seen the movie, but I understand it omits what is the most important part of the book. After the war, he has a terrible time adjusting to civilian life and becomes am abusive drunk until his wife gets him to go the a Billy Graham revival where he turns his life over to Jesus and spends the rest of his life ministering to troubled teens in California. This is easily the best non-fiction work I’ve ever read and, while it is thoroughly documented, it reads like an action-adventure thriller.

Finally I read Jonathan Edwards’ “Religious Affections.” (There are many, many editions of this book, Here is a link to Amazon’s list, though the edition I read doesn’t seem to be included)  This is an abridged edition published in 1984 by Multnomah Press and edited by James M. Houston as part of a series of “Classics of Faith and Devotion.” The editor has updated archaic language and shortened sentences and paragraphs to make it more readable to today’s reader. The result is really wonderful, though still not an easy read. It was written to moderate some of the fervor that came out of the Great Awakening of the 1740s and restore a more Biblically-based spirituality among believers. Edwards’ meaning of the term “affections” is not how we use the term today. He means something like passion, but less intense and emotional.

If , like me, your knowledge of Jonathan Edwards was a brief mention in school of his sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” this work is an eye opener. Far from a fire and brimstone preacher, Edwards was thoughtful and gentle. The greatest religious affection in his view is love. He writes, “The Scripture speaks of no real Christians who have an ugly, selfish, angry and contentious spirit. Nothing can be more contradictory than a morose, hard, closed, and spiteful Christian.” But even here, he is kind and forgiving, and adds, “Yet allowances must be made for our natural human temperament with regard to this as well as to other things.” We are all far from perfect, but with grace we are growing to be more Christ-like all the time.

He also anticipates some of what Bonhoeffer would write 200 years later, “But a true Christian can delight in religious fellowship and conversation, yet he also delights to retire from all fellow men and converse with God in solitude.” He notes that even Jesus (or especially Jesus) needed to often step away from the disciples and the crowds to spend time alone with the Father.

I also read an e-book published by Modern Reformation and edited by Michael Horton on “The Many Faces of John Calvin.”  This was frustrating because it seemed the various contributors each had their own axe to grind and were trying to stuff Calvin into their own boxes. So, my next project is to tackle John Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian Religion.” (Again, there are many editions available)  Wish me luck.

Posted by: gmscan | January 24, 2015

Bonhoeffer’s Life Together

Bonhoeffer’s Life Together

Fortress Press

I just finished reading a new translation of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s “Life Together.” It is well worth looking at.

If you don’t know already, Bonhoeffer was the greatest Christian martyr of the 20th Century. He was executed by the Nazis just before the defeat of Germany in World War Two for participating in a plot to kill Hitler.

Bonhoeffer was also a great theologian and pastor. He was a founder of the “confessing church” movement that resisted Nazi attempts to rewrite Christianity. The Nazis wanted to drop the Old Testament and turn Jesus into an icon of Aryan superiority. Their hatred and persecution of Jews was both genetic and religious. They didn’t accept that any Jew could become a Christian. Most of the churches in Germany went along with this — some enthusiastically, others were just cowardly and wanted to work “within the system.”

Some time ago I read Eric Metaxas’ terrific biography “Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy,” but this is the first I’ve read of Bonhoeffer’s own writing. He is a fabulous writer, but more than that, his thinking is fresh and vibrant even sixty years after he wrote it.

I was especially struck by how he sees Jesus everywhere and in every Christian. We are each human, of course, but Christ is alive inside each of us, and Bonhoeffer sees the Jesus within us – not figuratively, not metaphorically, but actually. Maybe this is not a new thought to you, but it is to me. I have tended to view Christians as people who believe — some half-heartedly, others whole hog — but that belief resides in the mind as an understanding. But to Bonhoeffer, we are partly Christ in fact. He is growing within us, and the longer we follow His way, the more he grows.

So, Bonhoeffer addresses the Christian community as a grace allowed by God. He writes –

“The Christian cannot simply take for granted the privilege of living among other Christians. Jesus Christ lived in the midst of his enemies. In the end all his disciples abandoned him. On the Cross he was all alone, surrounded by criminals and the jeering crowds. He had come for the express purpose of bringing peace to the enemies of God. So Christians, too, belong not in the exclusion of a cloistered life but in the midst of enemies. There they find their mission, their work.”

What a stunning thought to the American mind! We have always been, at least nominally, a Christian nation. Being a Christian is no great challenge for us. It is the default position, it has been what we were expected to do. Of course Bonhoeffer was living among Nazis and the Nazis tolerated Christians only if they replaced the Cross with the swastika. He says –

“It is by God’s grace that a congregation is permitted to gather visibly around God’s word and sacrament in this world. Not all Christians partake of this grace.”

He cites “the imprisoned, the sick, the lonely who live in the diaspora, the proclaimers of the gospel in heathen lands” as examples of isolated Christians. Think of the house churches in China or the underground believers in Muslim lands reading smuggled Bibles. It would be a joy for such followers to be free to worship with each other in public and without fear.

So, we experience “incomparable joy and strength” when we meet with other believers. But, “what is an inexpressible blessing from God for the lonely individual is easily disregarded and trampled under foot by those who receive the gift every day.” It is easy to forget that this gift can be taken from us at any time, so “let those who until now have had the privilege of living a Christian life together with other Christians praise God’s grace from the bottom of their hearts.”

Bonhoeffer uses his experience in running an underground seminary to model what an ideal community of Christians might be like. I won’t go into a lot of detail here, but briefly, he deals with the following –


Bonhoeffer is very concerned about people who bring their own expectations into a Christian community. Such people can deaden the community by measuring it against some subjective standard and criticizing it when it doesn’t match up. He sees this as narcissism (though he doesn’t use that term) – “God hates this wishful dreaming because it makes the dreamer proud and pretentious.”

He is especially critical of pastors who find their own congregations lacking – “Pastors should not complain about their congregations, certainly never to other people, but also not to God.”

He says that, however challenging it may be, God has placed us in a particular situation for a reason and we need to set aside our pride and listen to what God is saying about the situation.

I’m not sure I completely buy this, since I myself left a PCUSA church for one that I believed was more faithful to Scripture. But I left only after much prayer, so God may have placed me in the church to be exposed to apostasy and God may have wanted me to leave it as a witness to others. Many others left that church after I did, so perhaps God wanted me to set an example for these others.

The Day Together

Bonhoeffer says when we awake we should be still and let God have the first word of the day – “The early morning belongs to the church of the risen Christ.” I like this idea — that the rising sun belongs to the Risen Son. Bonhoeffer says, “Scripture reading, song, and prayer should be part of daily morning worship together.” Now, keep in mind that Bonhoeffer was coming from the context of running a seminary where a group of students were housed together. Obviously most of us do not live like that, and community worship is not possible for us first thing in the morning. Still the idea of starting each day with Scripture and prayer is something we all can do.

He especially likes the idea of reading and praying the Psalms first thing in the morning. Bonhoeffer argues that the Psalms are the prayers Jesus prayed, and were written in anticipation of Christ. Not all the Psalms apply to us personally, but we should still pray them because they all apply to Jesus, so we are praying not to Jesus but with him. Like the Lord’s Prayer, the Psalms will show us how Jesus wants us to pray.

He never falls from his focus on Jesus. This is unlike the modern American focus on what God is or will do for us. Bonhoeffer writes –

“It is in fact more important for us to know what God did to Israel, in God’s son Jesus Christ, than to discover what God intends for us today. The fact that Jesus Christ died is more important than the fact that I will die. And the fact that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead is the sole ground of my hope that I, too, will be raised on the day of judgment.”

Now, I don’t agree with everything Bonhoeffer says. For some reason he objects to singing in harmony and prefers unison singing, kind of like Gregorian chant, I guess. He dismisses bass and alto voices as calling “everybody’s attention to their astonishing range and therefore sing every hymn an octave lower.” Sorry, but some of us have voices that have to be an octave lower or we wouldn’t be able to sing the melody at all. It isn’t vanity.

He deals with a whole lot of other topics that I won’t go into here – communal meals, work, evening prayers, the need for alone time even when (or especially when) living in a community.


But there is one topic I want to focus on a bit. He calls on Christians to confess their sins to each other, quoting James 5:16, “Confess your sins to one another.” This is something I know many people are very uncomfortable with. He says, “Many Christians would be unimaginably horrified if a real sinner were suddenly to turn up among the pious. So we remain alone in our sin, trapped in lies and hypocrisy, for we are in fact sinners.”

This is beautifully written. He says, “You do not have to go on lying to yourself and to other Christians as if you were without sin. You are allowed to be a sinner. Thank God for that; God loves the sinner but hates the sin.” He says, “Sin wants to be alone with people. It takes them away from the community…. Sin that has been spoken and confessed has lost all its power.”

He urges us to confess our sins to another Christian. Not to make a big show of it, but do it privately, in confidence. He clarifies, “Does this mean that confession to one another is a divine law? No, confession is not a law; rather it is an offer of divine help to the sinner.”

If you find this idea alien, as many Protestants do (after all isn’t confession a Roman Catholic ritual?), you have never been to an AA meeting. Members of AA are not shy about confessing their many, many sins to the rest of the group. And guess what? People do not react in horror. They are far more likely to laugh with recognition, because we have all done that and worse. We are amazed at how stupid and irresponsible we have been and we are grateful that we do not have to be that way any longer. I should add that having other people laugh at our transgressions also mitigates the shame we feel, it frees us from the burden of carrying our shame alone.

And, isn’t that what Jesus promised us? He said —

“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:28-30)

Isn’t the burden most of us carry the burden of sin and shame?

Bonhoeffer, concludes this section by writing –

“To whom should we make a confession? According to Jesus’ promise every Christian believer can hear the confession of another. But will the other understand us? Might not another believer be so far beyond us in the Christian life that she or he would only turn away from us without understanding our personal sins? Whoever lives beneath the cross of Jesus and has discerned in the cross of Jesus the utter ungodliness of all people and of their own hearts, will find there is no sin that can ever be unfamiliar.”

Posted by: gmscan | November 28, 2014

Enriching My Prayer Time

I’ve been in Receive mode rather than Transmit mode for the past few months. It was time for me to just shut up and listen. I’ve been listening to people who know a lot more than I ever will about what Jesus has done and continues to do in our lives.

One of these is Dietrich Bonhoeffer, one of the organizers of the “Confessing Church” movement during the Hitler Regime in Germany. Hitler, of course, insisted that Christian churches swear allegiance to him and reject the Old Testament as Jewish propaganda. In the face of this, Bonhoeffer wrote a very short book, “Prayer Book of the Bible,” that argued the Psalms were essential to Christianity. In fact, he said that the Psalms are the prayers Jesus himself prayed.

Even on the Cross Christ was praying the Psalms. “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me” are the opening words of Psalm 22. “Into your hands I commit my spirit” is an essential line from Psalm 31.

Bonhoeffer says that, while many of the Psalms may not fit whatever we are experiencing at the moment, we should pray them anyway because in doing so we are praying with Christ, not just to Him. Like the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus is showing us how we should pray to the Father, because it is the way he himself prayed to the Father.

Immediately after reading Bonhoeffer, I came across an interview with Tim Keller, Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian (PCA) Church in New York City. He has just written a new book, “Prayer: Experiencing Awe and Intimacy with God.” He talks about praying the Psalms –

“I came to see that the Psalms are extremely important for prayer. Perhaps that is because I read a book some years ago by Eugene Peterson called Answering God. He makes a strong case that we only pray well if we are immersed in Scripture. We learn our prayer vocabulary the way children learn their vocabulary — that is, by getting immersed in language and then speaking it back. And he said the prayer book of the Bible is the Psalms, and our prayer life would be immeasurably enriched if we were immersed in the Psalms. So that was the first step.”

Keller, like Bonhoeffer, is also very big on meditation. He says –

“(I)t diminishes our prayer life that our hearts are cold when we get into prayer. Without meditation, you tend to go right into petition and supplication, and you do little adoration or confession. When your heart is warm, then you start to praise God and then you confess. When your heart is cold, which it is if you just study the Bible and then jump to prayer, you are much more likely to spend your time on your prayer list and not really engage your heart.”

I’ve always been a little dubious about meditation, probably because I associate it with Transcendental Medication and Buddhism. I thought you had to try to clear your mind of all thought and enter into some kind of trance. But this is not what Keller and Bonhoeffer mean by it. They mean clear your mind of distractions, yes, but think about what you have just read (in this case, one of the Psalms) and listen for God’s further word to you.

In other words, prayer is not just you talking to God, but also listening to what God has to say to you. You need to be quiet and receptive so you will have the ability to listen.

These ideas have transformed my evening prayers. Now I get on my knees, read a Psalm, think about what I have read, and listen for God’s reply. I don’t always get a reply, but it still gives me a chance to absorb the wisdom and emotion of the Psalm. Only then do I speak my own prayer and it is a lot more natural to include those elements of adoration and confession along with thanksgiving and petition.

I feel myself becoming a quieter and more patient man now. And now I look forward every day to the time I have carved out to spend alone with my Father.

Posted by: gmscan | June 26, 2014

The PCUSA Becomes a Parody


UPDATE: “Parody” turns out to be an apt headline. Some of the examples posted on the “Naming His Grace” blog turn out to be just that. To get the latest, go to

Unfortunately all of the rest remains true, alas.


At its recent General Assembly in Detroit, the Presbyterian Church (USA) became a mockery of Christianity. If there is a Lefty cause anywhere, you can bet the ol’ PCUSA will embrace it. But it is more than politics. The denomination has also adopted a 1960s style hippy love-in culture with an “if it feels good, do it” message.

First the politics –

Divestment from Israel.

The Denomination voted narrowly to divest from three companies doing business with the Israeli government — Motorola, Caterpillar, and Hewlett-Packard. By itself this doesn’t sound that bad, although all three are outstanding companies that pay excellent wages to American workers and help our balance of trade problems. But it came in the context of the PCUSA’s distribution of two blatantly anti-Semitic documents – The Kairos Paper, which I’ve written about here,  and the even worse “Zionism Unchained.”

Virtually the entire American Jewish community, even the left-leaning J Street, has expressed alarm and outrage at these actions, but the PCUSA was unconcerned. The rabid anti-Semites in the denomination are complacent about hundreds of Christian girls being kidnapped in Nigeria, about soccer fans being slaughtered in Kenya, about a Christian mother being imprisoned in in Sudan, and Christians throughout Syria and Iraq being executed. It chooses to focus instead on the only democracy in the Middle East protecting itself from terrorism. See this article  and this.

Homosexual Issues

First it was ordination of homosexual pastors, now the PCUSA has overwhelmingly endorsed performing same-sex weddings, violating the clear instructions of Scripture. Sure, attitudes in the United States are changing, but Christians are not supposed to conform themselves to “the world,” but help conform the world to God. Our job is not to make ourselves more popular with the passing fancies of secular society, but to witness to the Word of God, no matter the cost. See this article  and this.


The PCUSA has one of the most radical pro-abortion positions of any organization I have encountered. I have written about this before.  Now it has even refused to support a resolution condemning the murder of babies who manage to survive and abortion – the kind of activity that sent Kermit Gosnell to prison. See this article.

All of this is tragic, but it turns into comedy when we look at some of the groups finding homes under the PCUSA umbrella of “Worshipping Communities.” Viola Larsen cites some in her “Naming His Grace” blog including these –

Bi-Cycling For All

A place to find and know God for the bi-sexual community while emphasizing the unitarian concepts embodied in the primary geometric symbol of bicycles, round wheels, round gears, and a chain connecting the unity of the drivetrain. We will work diligently to advocate for full inclusion of bisexual individuals into the life of the church, including ordination, bisexual marriage equality, and recognition that Jesus was bisexual.


Fellowship for All Species

The Fellowship of All Species gathers to worship the Creator of All— not just the human species. We will work for full inclusion of all animal species into the life and witness of the PC(USA). Our desire is to recognize that every living, breathing creature upon this earth is welcome in the church and can serve the church in varied and unique ways, giving witness to the Creator.

Have I told you how grateful I am that the Spirit came and freed me from this preposterous bunch of heretics?

Posted by: gmscan | May 29, 2014

God and Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking ends his book, “A Brief History of Time,” by writing –

“However, if we do discover a complete theory (of everything), it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists.  Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we would know the mind of God.”

The problem with that thought is that we already know the mind of God, or at least the part that He is willing to reveal to us. We know it through His Word, the Holy Scripture.

But, then Christians and Jews already knew most of what Hawking reveals in his book. For thousands of years we have known about the Big Bang, we have known that time is mutable, we have known that there was a common mother and father of all humanity, and we have known that there exists a Creator and a Heaven who are outside of our universe and not subject to the natural laws that rule the universe.

Science is just beginning to catch up, and bully for them. But they are coming at the truth reluctantly, desperately trying to avoid the obvious conclusions, as Hawking illustrates in his later book, “The Universe in a Nutshell.” God must be having a grand time watching all this unfold. But, then, He knew it would. After all, He gave us the tools that would lead to these conclusions.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. When I was in the first grade our class discussed what causes the sound of thunder. I proudly raised my hand and gave the answer my mother always told me – it is the sound of clouds bumping into each other! The class started laughing at that stupid answer and I felt humiliated. Many years later I discovered that she was actually pretty close to the truth, it is indeed caused by the movement of air particles. Thunder is produced by the rapid expansion of air resulting from being suddenly superheated by the lightning. My mother had given me a version that a very young child could understand.

So it was with Scripture. God did not provide mathematical proofs – we didn’t know much about advanced calculus at the time. He gave us a narrative and asked us to trust Him. Thousands of years later we are finally coming to understand what He said.

So, let’s look a little more closely at some of these ideas.

The Big Bang.

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth waswithout form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good.”  (Genesis 1:1-4)

Hawking was one of the originators of the idea of a Big Bang, along with Roger Penrose. This is the idea that the universe is expanding and if we follow it back in time it will collapse into nothing, before which there was no time and no matter. They coauthored a paper in 1970 that “proved” it mathematically. He writes –

“There was a lot of opposition to our work, particularly from the Russians because of their Marxist belief in scientific determinism, and partly from people who felt that the whole idea of a singularity (the Big Bang) was repugnant and spoiled the beauty of Einstein’s theory. However, one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem, so in the end our work became generally accepted and nowadays nearly everyone assumes that the universe started with a big bang singularity.”

It is notable that scientists, and not just Marxist ones, resisted the idea because it gave credence to the Scriptural explanation. They held on to their “beliefs” because of a nostalgic attachment to the “beauty of Einstein’s theory.”

Hardly sounds like the fearless quest for truth as science is often portrayed. But Hawking includes many similar examples of established scientists resisting new ideas. He even includes a brief biography of Galileo, which indicates it was not the Church as much as “the Aristotelian professors” which were hostile to Copernicanism. Indeed, the Church supported his work in writing and publishing his “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems.”

It should be noted that Hawking himself is currently moving away from the Big Bang idea, arguing that using quantum mechanics it is possible that the universe is in a sort of endless loop without boundaries of any kind.  I must say that I don’t find the argument persuasive (as a layman and not a mathematician). He goes into this in his second book, but to get there he needs to invent concepts like “imaginary time” and “infinite histories” of the universe. These ideas may work mathematically, but they defy any kind of sense that I am familiar with. For example, we might have infinite futures, but how can there be “infinite histories” within any definition of the word “history?” History is what did happen in fact. There can be alternate explanations, but there cannot be alternate events.

Hawking himself acknowledges some of the problems. He writes –

“There is no more experimental evidence for some of the theories described in this book than there is for astrology, but we believe them because they are consistent with theories that have survived testing.”

And he gives a fairly lengthy caution about the limits of science –

“In 1931 the mathematician Kurt Godel proved his famous incompleteness theorem about the nature of mathematics. The theorem states that within any formal system of axioms, such as present day mathematics, questions always persist that can neither be proved nor disproved on the basis of the axioms that define the system. In other words, Godel showed that there are problems that cannot be solved by any set of rules or procedures.

“Godel’s theorem set fundamental limits on mathematics. It came as a great shock to the scientific community, since it overthrew the widespread belief that mathematics was a coherent and complete system based on a simple logical foundation. Godel’s theorem, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and the practical impossibility of following the evolution of even a deterministic system that becomes chaotic form a core set of limitations to scientific knowledge that only came to be appreciated during the twentieth century.”

The lesson, to me, of Hawking’s evolution is that he is following the math down a rabbit hole of nonsense. He says later in the book –

“A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. If the predictions agree with the observations, the theory survives, though it can never be proved to be correct.”

Given that principle, Hawking has left “good theory” far behind and is now in the realm of pure speculation. That is fine, speculation can be fun, but it is no longer science.

Mutable Time

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” (2Peter 3:8)

The idea that time is not a constant has been well established for a very long time. Hawking cites an experiment conducted in 1962 that showed that a clock at the top of a water tower ran faster than one at the bottom, consistent with Einstein’s theory of general relativity. A man who went deep into space at near the speed of light would return much younger than his twin who stayed on Earth. Hawking discusses the implication of this on our understanding of God and cites Augustine reminding us that God is not subject to time – “Time is a property only of the universe that God created,” writes Hawking.  God is not of this universe, so He is not subject to the natural laws that govern this universe, i.e. He is “super natural.”

It is interesting that Hawking returns repeatedly to God in his writing.  He says, for instance –

“It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as an act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”

And –

“With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started – it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off.”

I would comment that God may not “usually” intervene to break these laws, but He does from time to time. These times are what we know as miracles.

But Hawking just can’t quite accept that conclusion, so he continues –

“So long as the universe had a beginning we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither a beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?”

And, again, this is where he gets into concepts like “imaginary time” to wriggle out of the conclusions he himself has arrived at. Is this really so very different than the Soviet scientists who rejected Hawking’s original Big Bang discovery because it violated their Marxist ideology?

There is more to be said here, but this post is getting too long. I will get back to it later.

Posted by: gmscan | May 8, 2014

Bondage of the Will

My men’s group has been reading Martin Luther’s “Bondage of the Will.” The version we have was published in 1957 and translated by James I. Packer and O.R. Johnson.

It’s quite a slog and we have discovered what limited vocabularies we have. I’m afraid the translators also like to show off how erudite they are, using obscure words when simpler one would do just fine. Plus, they use King James for all the Scripture quotations and that is alien to our ears these days. So, in reading the book we needed three hands – one for the book, another for the Bible, and a third for a dictionary.

Still, I’m glad we are doing it. This is one of the most important books of Christian theology ever written. It anchors the Reformation’s understanding of justification and salvation and contrasts starkly with the Roman Catholic tradition then and now.

In fact, just the other day I heard Bill O’Reilly explain that he performs good deeds in order to earn his way to Heaven (that isn’t quite how he put it, but close enough). I would wager that most modern Christians share his view – God rewards you for being good in life. The better you are, the more certain your reward.

It is fascinating that this is precisely the attitude Luther was contending with 500 years ago. His book is entirely a rebuttal of another book, the “Diatribe” by Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus was a moderate reformer, and thought Luther was going too far, both in theology and manner. As the translators note in their very useful explanation of the controversy, Erasmus believed Luther was a “destroyer of civil, religious and cultural harmony and order.”

And so he was. Luther’s book goes well beyond being just a theological explanation of his views, to insulting and demeaning Erasmus on nearly every page. Luther is a master of sarcasm and he is contemptuous of the “harmony and order” Erasmus was defending.

You can see the sarcasm and contempt clearly in Luther’s response to Erasmus on this very issue of harmony and order. He writes –

“What a fulsome speaker you are! — but utterly ignorant of what you are talking about. In a word, you treat this discussion as if the issue at stake between us was the recovery of a debt or some other trivial item, the loss of which matters far less than the public peace…. You make it clear that this carnal peace and quiet seems to you far more important than faith, conscience, salvation, the Word of God, the glory of Christ, and God himself. Let me tell you, therefore – and I beg you to let this sink deep into your mind – I hold that a solemn and vital truth, of eternal consequence, is at stake in this discussion….”

When it came to speaking the truth of the Gospel, Luther had no interest in sugar coating or sanitizing his views to avoid offending people.

And what are those views? First and importantly, Luther was not saying man has no free will at all. He writes —

“… man should realize that in regard to his money or possessions he has a right to use them, to do or leave undone according to his own free will — though that free will is overruled by the free will of God alone, according to His own pleasure. However, with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, he has no free will and is a captive, prisoner and bondslave, either to the will of God or to the will of Satan.”

In other words, you are perfectly free to decide what you will have for lunch today or what movie you will go to tonight, though God may call you to do something else. But you are completely unable to save yourself from damnation. Only God may do that.

This idea raised quite a bit of debate among our men. Some of us can’t shake the feeling that we have to do something to earn our salvation. At a minimum, we have to answer when God calls. But Luther says, no, not even that – the only reason we say yes rather than no to God’s call is because the Holy Spirit has already infected us and given us the ability to say yes.  Without that, we would go on our merry way and pay no attention to the calling.

What, then is the point of Christ’s command to preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth? Aren’t we educating people about the Good News and preparing them to accept God’s call? Yes, perhaps, but we are only the Lord’s instrument. People are receptive to the preaching only because God has already made them receptive. It has nothing to do with us, or our powers of persuasion.

This is so hard for us modern Americans to accept, accustomed as we are to think of hard work as the way to get ahead in the world and enjoying the rewards that come from it. This is why my favorite parable is Jesus’ description of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16). Some got to work early in the morning, others showed up around noon, and still others didn’t start until just before quitting time, but the boss paid them all the same wages. This would be no way to run a business. It makes no sense in the world. But Jesus isn’t talking about the world, but the kingdom of Heaven. The reward of salvation is available to all no matter how hard they work. It is not their effort but God’s grace that determines the reward.

This difficulty is not confined to modern Americans. Luther quotes Erasmus as asking, “If there is no freedom of will, what place is there for merit? If there is no place for merit, what place is there for reward? To what will it be ascribed, if man is justified without merit?”  Luther cites Paul in his answer – “There is no such thing as merit at all, but all that are justified are justified freely, and this is ascribed to nothing but the grace of God.” 

Now, Luther also says there is nothing wrong with doing good, in fact it is commendable. But it is a grave mistake to think it equates with God’s righteousness –

“I should grant that free will by its endeavors can advance in some direction, namely in the direction of good works, or the righteousness of civil or moral law, yet it does not advance towards God’s righteousness, nor does God deem its efforts in any respect worthy to gain His righteousness.”

And, again –

“We know that man was made lord over things below him, and that he has a right and a free will with respect to them, that they should obey him and do as he wills and thinks. But our question is this: whether he has free will God-ward, that God should obey man and do what man wills, or whether God has not rather a free will with respect to man, that man should will and do what God wills….”

As the beasts are to us, we are to God.

At the end of the book, Luther answers Bill O’Reilly almost directly –

“I frankly confess that, for myself, even if it could be, I should not want free will to be given to me, nor anything to be left in my own hands to enable me to endeavor after salvation; not merely because in face of so many dangers and adversities and assaults of devils I could not stand my ground… but because even if there were no dangers, adversities, or devils, I should still be forced to labor with no guarantee of success….  If I lived and worked to all eternity, my conscience would never reach confortable certainty as to how much it must do to satisfy God. Whatever work I had done, there would still be a nagging doubt as to whether it pleased God, or whether he required something more.”

Adam’s (and Lucifer’s) sin was to think he could be like God and make his own decisions about good and evil, right and wrong, salvation and damnation.  Humans still think we can go out and find God of our own effort. That is what most religions believe. Luther knew we cannot, which is precisely why Christ came to us. And that is the essence of Christianity.

Posted by: gmscan | April 18, 2014

It is Finished

Last night at Maundy Thursday services, our pastor read from Isaiah (53:1-10)

Who has believed what he has heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.

He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.

By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation,  who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?

And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

I can’t hear these words without also hearing Handel’s Messiah in my head. Handel intended his oratorio to be performed during Lent, not Advent, and it is far more appropriate for Easter than Christmas.

I have always especially loved the chorus, “All we like sheep,” dancing, bouncing, and carefree, followed by the soaring and mournful, “And the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Long before I realized I was a Christian I would choke up when I heard this music.

But it is breathtaking how this prophecy was fulfilled at the cross – “he opened not his mouth,” “he was pierced for our transgressions,” “they made his grave… with a rich man…”

In this town, the YMCA closes for Good Friday and holds an early morning service. This morning, they read from John (10: 10-18)

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

I am the good shepherd.  I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.

And I have other sheep that are not of this fold.  I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.

No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again.  This charge I have received from my Father.

He did it. God’s prophets predicted it and Jesus fulfilled it. He laid down his life of his own accord to save his sheep from the wolves. It is done. It is finished.

Praise be to God.

Posted by: gmscan | March 27, 2014

God, the Sociologist

An entire issue of  “Modern Reformation” was recently devoted to the question of Holy War,  notably the book of Joshua and Israel’s conquest of the Holy Land. The companion radio show  devotes three segments to the topic, — “The Gospel According to Joshua,” “Is God a Moral Monster?” and “Holy War.”

The core article is by Michael Horton, who writes, ”How can we reconcile the God who commands the extermination of men, women, children, and even pets and possessions with the God we know in the face of Jesus Christ?” He notes that some Christians excuse these “texts of terror” as being merely allegorical, i.e., they didn’t really happen, but are supposed to represent the struggle we all face between the good and evil inside us. Others say that the God of the Old Testament is different than the God of the New, so we shouldn’t have to defend that mean old God.

Horton rejects both rationalizations. He offers two counter theses. I don’t want to go into detail on his explanations, but he argues, first that Israel was subject to the same judgments and penalties as the Canaanites if they violate God’s covenant, — “It has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing or genocide, but with the fact that child-sacrificing, violent warriors, and unjust oppressors are squatters on God’s land.”

His second argument is that “No modern nation – including Israel (much less the U.S.) can engage in holy war.” He explains –

“This does not mean we can invoke the old covenant holy wars as a literal basis for modern nation-states, including Israel. Not even the church can use the temporal sword to defend the gospel. There are no nations in covenant with God: whether Israel, Britain, or the United States. “Christendom” is a serious error of Biblical interpretation. No nation will ever again be identified with God’s saving purposes in history. “

I have no argument with Horton here. I think he is right on both counts. But I think there is also something else he doesn’t deal with. That is that God is a pretty good sociologist (and anthropologist, too). He deals with us on our own terms, through our own social norms, in the context of what we are capable of receiving from Him, given our current state of development.

God hasn’t changed a whit. The God of the Old Testament is the exact same God as in the New. Both show us a God of love and forgiveness, but also a God of justice and righteousness. Neither book shows us a God who coddles sin. Jesus said he would separate the sheep from the goats on the last day. The Great Commandment Jesus spoke is the same as the one in Deuteronomy (with the addition of loving your neighbor). Jesus constantly quoted from Hebrew Scripture and said he was here to fulfill the prophesies. He did not reject the Old Testament and neither should we.

Mankind hasn’t changed, either. We are every bit as lustful, envious, greedy, and violent today as we were 4,000 years ago. All of the stories of deceit, rape, adultery, drunkenness, and betrayal in the Old Testament are familiar to us today.

What has changed is fashion and social structures. Jesus wasn’t dressed in blue jeans when he roamed Galilee, he dressed in the fashion of the time. If Jesus came today he would not be wearing a tunic and a robe. If he did, everyone would talk about his clothing rather than his message. God comes to us as we are.

In fact, I’ve heard a number of people say that God really screwed up by sending us Jesus when he did. If God were smart, they say, he would have waited until today when Jesus would have had access to the internet and cable TV to spread his message.

It’s an interesting thought because in fact God DID choose the perfect time for Jesus. It was a unique slice of time in which the sociological conditions were just right for Christ’s redeeming work.

The Jews had gone some 400 years without a prophet. They were hungry for it. They had been conquered and occupied several times after the last prophet, first by the Greeks under Alexander in the fourth century B.C, then ruled by Ptolemy in 323 B.C., then Antiochus III took over Palestine in 198 B.C., then Antiochus IV in 175 B.C.

This last Antiochus brutally suppressed the Jews, burning their Holy Books, banning the Sabbath and circumcision, and desecrating the temple. This all had a couple of effects. It made knowledge of Greek almost universal in Palestine, but also resulted in the Maccabean rebellion and the advent of the ultra-orthodox Pharisees, which came into being only about 100 B.C.

The Romans didn’t enter the picture until 63 B.C. when they occupied Jerusalem. They installed Herod as king in 37 B.C. Herod began rebuilding the temple in 20 B.C. [1] Ultimately the Romans would drive the Jews out of Jerusalem and all of Palestine, and destroy the Temple in 70 A.D. So there was a very short time of 90 years in which the Jews and Romans intersected and set the stage for Jesus.

Why was this intersection important? Because elements of both cultures were essential for the propagation of the faith after the Pentecost. Obviously the Messiah was an outgrowth of Judaism, but also the dispersion of the Jews during the Babylonian exile meant there were established Jewish communities and synagogues throughout the world. The Apostles used these synagogues as bases of operations as they spread the Gospel. The Roman Empire meant open borders and good roads throughout the territory they controlled. It was relatively easy for the Apostles to move about, not just the Middle East but southern Asia and Europe as well. And, of course, Rome finally accepted Jesus as the Messiah and spread the Gospel throughout the world.

So God knew exactly what he was doing. He waited until our society was ready before sending us the Christ. It had nothing to do with God’s abilities, but with our capacity to accept God’s purpose. God knows very well, in fact perfectly, what are the limits and capabilities of human society and of each human being. It’s often said that God will not ask us to do things beyond our abilities. The same holds true for human society.

So it was with Joshua. But before we go there, let’s go back to the Exodus.

Here we meet a landless people who had been enslaved in Egypt for 430 years. (Exodus 12:40) Actually they were barely “a people” at all. They had no written scripture, no law, no tradition of governance. They had a common language and an oral tradition, but that was it. This was a massive congregation of people – 600,000 men plus women, children and livestock, according to Exodus 12:37. Through Moses God freed them from slavery in Egypt, but what then? God had to turn them into a nation.

To do that, God made them wander in the wilderness for a generation. He would not allow any of the people who spent their adulthood as slaves to enter the Promised Land, including Moses himself. Perhaps adult slaves are not capable of self-governance, even once they are free.

Those 40 years gave Moses a chance to write the Pentateuch, providing the Israelis with a national history. God gave them the Ten Commandments, as the basis of their law. He gave them specific dietary restrictions and detailed instructions on how to build the Tabernacle. He divided them into a federation of tribes. All of this was to form them into a nation, one that was different and distinct from all other nations at the time.

Finally, we get to Joshua.

So we have some two million people, a new nation-to-be without any history of governance, economics, or warfare, coming upon a land occupied by idol worshipping heathens. God has united them into a people, but not yet a nation as they have no land and no borders.

God needs to teach them how to conquer. What he teaches them is no more than how war was conducted at the time. He was not uniquely brutal. He was attuned to the sociology of the times. The Israelites are triumphant as long as they follow God’s commands, but when one of them steals plunder from Jericho against God’s instructions, they lose the next battle at Ai. Once they correct the trespass, God makes them victorious again.

When Israel takes a city, they kill all the inhabitants, men women and children. Some people take offense at the brutality. But, as we said, none of this was unusual in those times, or for that matter today. Israel killed all 12,000 residents of Ai. But Josephus records that the Romans killed 1,100,000 Jews in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and took another 97,000 as slaves.

Before we get all superior acting about the barbarity of the ancients, let’s remember that the United States killed 66,000 with one bomb at Hiroshima – men, women, and children, all noncombatants. We did the same at Nagasaki and we firebombed Dresden. We would do it again if we thought we had to. War is likened to Hell for a reason.

So, again, God takes us as He finds us. With some notable exceptions we don’t do passive resistance very well. Gandhi and Martin Luther King were successful at it, but they were dealing with oppressors who were capable of shame. The March from Selma to Birmingham was broadcast on television to the whole nation. We were ashamed of the conduct of Bull Connor and it galvanized the rest of the American public to support remedies. Dictators and emperors have no such constraints.

God works through human beings, with all our faults and our sins. It was time to create the Nation of Israel, so that the Messiah would eventually have a place to be born. It was time to establish the Law, so we would know how sinful we are and so that the Messiah’s grace would eventually replace it.

It is all one Bible, all one story. God does what is necessary to build His kingdom within the constraints of human society. We are very slow learners but the Lord is very patient. To him a thousand years is like a day. Two thousand years ago he told us to spread the Good News to every corner of the world and we still haven’t got it done. He told us to love our God with all our hearts and all our minds and to love our neighbors as ourselves. How we doin’ on that one?

Yes, I know, I know. We’re really, really busy, and the kids need to go to soccer practice and the boss wants me to work overtime, and the car needs a new transmission. It’s all right. God knows us better than we know ourselves. We don’t need to make excuses, He knows what’s going on and He loves us anyway. And for that, I thank God every day.


[1] This history is taken from “Intertestamental Period” in “The Reformation Study Bible,” R.C. Sproul, general editor, Lingonier Ministries, 2005.

Posted by: gmscan | March 5, 2014

Prayers From the Food Bank

I’ve been volunteering at the local food bank for the past year. We are privately funded, mostly by local churches. We often invite clients to put in prayer requests. We’re not especially systematic about this, and sometimes forget to ask, but then someone’s desperation is so obvious that we are reminded again.

In looking over these requests from the past couple of months, I was struck by a couple of things –

  • Most of the time, people are not asking for prayers for themselves, but for friends and family members.
  • When they do request prayers for themselves, the requests are extremely modest – find a job, get through some medical treatment, find a better home, get over an addiction. Only one person prayed to win the lottery and that was so he could get his old house back.
  • Very often they are confident that God will indeed help them through their times of trouble. Their faith is strong.
  • These prayers are often answered.

These are beautiful people and I am grateful that I can contribute to their healing if only in a little way.

If you would, please join us in these prayers. I am not using people’s names because I don’t want to embarrass them or violate their privacy, but the Lord knows who they are and what is in their hearts.


January 2, 2014

My son – health & mental help. Let go of demons. God help him.


N—- is having trouble with colon. Please, Lord, I’m praying for healing and your will be done.


D—–, job

A—–, find a job


Thank you, God for all the wonderful people who work here. God bless.




January 6, 2014

S—- W—— has been in York trauma since Dec 21, 2013


J— Y—



January 9, 2014

Please Lord, help C——– with her car troubles and help those shopped here and didn’t want to trust your saving grace and love that you have to offer to those who surrender to you/


Husband’s health and sobriety.

Daughter’s mental health

Friend w/ thyroid cancer

Friend who lost twins


January 10,2014

Pray for my son and girlfriend and baby to get along and healthy baby


O——– going through a custody battle


January 13, 2014

C— addicted to pain medication and in a clinic to get off his addiction!!!!


Touch the heart of employer whom I have put application in with. Bless me with your will in obtaining employment. I need a second job to maintain. Lord, just allow your will to be done in my life. Amen. I am thankful for everything.


January 14, 2014

S——‘s new baby coming. Hope and pray that the child is healthy.



R—— pray to get off her pill addiction, and for R—– going through domestic relations. Help them work things out. No jail for him.



Pray for my son R—— with his court things, child support, and getting his paperwork.


January 16, 2014

C— getting his job at T— for his family and income and pray that he knows Jesus as his personal savior.


B—- D—– family

Motorcycle accident, pelvic broken in 4 places, boys ADHD


Pray for the backpack program (NOTE: this is a program sponsored by the food bank that gives school kids food to take home on Friday so they can eat over the weekend) and the children that have to go through this life style.


Pray for A—- that she stops smoking and that the patches work in her life.

Pray for D— to stop drinking and to know the Lord and surrender to your will.


January 17, 2014

D— K—-

Pray for business D- M—– P—-.



Pray for my grandson & for my daughter. She had a heart attack.


January 24, 2014


Please God, let me find a new home since I had a fire and please let me get a job soon. Thank you!   I—- (son) K—- (BF)


Lord God & Jesus, watch over our good friend in the after life. His name is G—– D—–


Please, God, help me through the situation I’m in. Please bless us with smooth move back to ND, and please help my husband find a job.

Thank you, C—— C—-


Prayer request for D—— H—– need a job and W—– S—-.

D—- S—-


January 25, 2014

P– & N— M—–

Housebound & bed ridden


W—- R——-

Full time help – need a place to live.


My prayers are for all, as well as my enemies. Pray those that must find the Lord and pray 4 forgiveness mean it and change for the better within. I wish all well. Grudges and hatred are not good, forgiveness is to an extent. Amen


Please pray for my family. Our car broke down, my husband lost his job and just found out we are having our 7th child.


January 29, 2014

Pray for K—, T— L—–, having problems in relationship and J—‘s addiction to porn.


January 30, 2014

I need prayer, need to obtain employment.



I pray food help.



Pray for my family and my son and pray that I get to go back to school.


February 10, 2014


Please pray for the family of the funeral she went to for the loss of their family member.



For myself and for a job and a home.


February 11, 2014

V—— for surgery.



Children w/ disabilities. Dad w/ medical issues, my sister w/ medical issues.


A—- in hospital, not knowing what is going on.



B—— E– & B—— G—— please pray for these two people, COPD and stoke.


T—-, Thurs for catheter & diabetes and nerve problems


February 20, 2014

M——‘s mother P—- just lost her father end of last year. Pray that she gets thru the estate sale this weekend.


D— B—–

Money, new job, peace.


S— N——-

Pray for our daughter going to school in Pittsburgh. May God keep her safe and may she keep God close to her heart.


Pray for K—– S—— & her baby to come.


Pray for the E—- Children to stay healthy & their baby brother who is on his way soon.


February 21, 2014

S—– N—–, infant medical conditions


D—–, surgery (bowel resection)


M—, family to get spirit of God in them – go the right way.


L—- & K—-, my grandbabies.


B—– R———-, God knows circumstance. Thank you.


February 24, 2014

That M—— C—– and I win the lottery. Top Prize. Also that I can buy my old house, move back in, and be OK

R—– S—-


February 25, 2014

Lord, Pls grant me a new townhouse to dwell in peace & safety in. You know my heart as w/ other desires for a husband & good health & anything else you feel I am worth of receiving. Thank you for your blessings, Lord.


Lord, thank you so much for the food and people who work here. Also would pray for my family and friends. Very thankful for everything. God bless people who have helped me.

J—- W—-


N—- F— had a heart attack in Sept. having some difficulties. Pray for me and my family, and a little baby named W—— who has cancer at 10 months old. Thank you.


Lord, please help me and my family find a comfortable safe new home, please. Thank you.

B—— S—-, V— B—-


K—- & K—

I just wish she’d respect me and I wish the best for her. I love her.


February 28, 2014

Pray for D——‘ s sister B—-, heart attack.



Pray for employment or extended employment benefits.


Aunt T— continue Recovery!

E—– G——- Port wine stain covering his face. Please pray that there are no health issues to come from it.



March 4, 2014

J—– & A— S——-

Pray for our son, he is going into the Marines.


J—- M——

Please pray J—‘s arm heals fast and keep her steady on her feet to prevent her from falling again! Keep her safe and let God’s grace embrace her.



Posted by: gmscan | February 20, 2014

Pope Francis on the Worship of Money

Last time we looked at The Pope’s Apostolic Exhortation  we focused on the 210 pages that had to do with the joy of evangelism. But the American press focused instead solely on the seven pages that had to do with money and economics. This by itself is quite a commentary, suggesting that Francis was not wrong when he observed that the worship of money has become the modern idolatry.

Below we’ll take a look at much of the reaction, but let’s keep in mind that this section was not a primary, or even important, topic in the paper. It was there mostly to set the context in which evangelism must operate today. The Pope is not an economist and is not even speaking primarily about the American economic system.

The man was a Jesuit priest in Argentina. He has no reason to know the nuances of political discourse in the United States. So when he uses terms like “trickle down economics” it is not because he is endorsing the Democratic Party’s critique of Ronald Reagan’s economic program or commenting on the 1980’s policy disputes between Jack Kemp, Art Laffer and David Stockman.

That the American Left reacted so triumphantly and the Right so defensively is either silly or sad. Although it is also interesting that both sides, secularists all, should be so concerned about the writings of a man of God. Maybe there is hope, after all.

Francis makes some fairly conventional points about how “humanity is experiencing a turning-point in its history” and how, while great progress has been made in areas such as health care, education and communications, it is still the case that “the majority of our contemporaries are barely living from day to day, with dire consequences,” and that “many people are gripped by fear and desperation…”

These things are true and much discussed across the political spectrum. Moving from the industrial age to the information age is creating great turmoil and economic uncertainty in the United States but even more all across the globe. The educated elite is doing very well while blue collar workers are struggling. The media obsess over the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin incident while ignoring the slaughter of children on the South Side of Chicago. Millions upon millions of Syrian refugees are living in misery in tent cities and the world’s political leaders do next to nothing to help.

Perhaps Francis’ most controversial statements are these –

“… some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”

And –

“While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few.”

Now some take these lines and distort them to fit their political agenda. Writing in the National Review,  James Pethokoukis provides a stark example –

“Slate columnist Matthew Yglesias, a liberal, approves of how Pope Francis “really lights into libertarian economics” but adds that there’s “lot of stuff about Jesus in his thinking that I can’t really sign on to.”

Imagine – all that “Jesus Stuff” coming from a Pope! He’d be great if it weren’t for that.

On the other hand, writing in The Federalist  David Harsanyi takes just the opposite stance. The Pope’s Exhortation is “a beautiful document and a joy to read…” when he sticks to theology, but when he discusses economics… –

“…the Pope didn’t simply point out that the wealthy weren’t doing enough to help alleviate poverty. He used the recognizable rhetoric of the Left to accuse free-market systems of generating and nurturing that poverty. And these platitudes — things that run wild in the liberal imagination like unfettered capitalism and “trickle-down” economics — were clearly aimed at the United States.”

In other words, the “Jesus stuff” is great but not the economics.

But some people don’t like “the Jesus stuff” or the economics. Writing in Reason Magazine,  Shikha Dalmia takes a tiresome poke at the Church for getting 60% of its money from the United States and being “reportedly the largest landowner in Manhattan (which) puts undisclosed sums into its coffers.” Therefore, “the new Pope needs to be careful not to bite the hand that feeds his institution….” She adds that it is ironic that the Pope “is speaking for an institution that excludes half of humanity—women—from the ranks of priesthood.” (I’m not sure I see the irony, other than just a slam at the Church.)

All of the writers on the right point out that capitalism has done more to reduce global poverty than any system ever devised, and certainly more than the Church has done. The argument is summed up by Harsanyi –

“The World Bank estimates global poverty was halved from 1990 to 2010. In fact, according to the World Bank, the United Nations’ “millennium development goal” of cutting world poverty in half by 2015 came in five years ahead of schedule despite a major global recession. The decline in poverty coincides, not coincidentally, with developing nations embracing more market-based systems.”

But this argument applies only if you misread what the Pope said as an indictment of free market capitalism. He is not disputing the benefits of such capitalism. Writing in the Sunbeam Times, Dr. David McKalip does a sterling job of explaining that the Pope was aiming his criticism, not at “free market capitalism,” but at “crony capitalism” in which a small elite uses its political influence to enrich itself and block potential competitors.  McKalip explains –

“Pope Francis was interviewed in Italy’s “La Stampa”newspaper regarding, among other things, the controversy generated by “The Joy of the Gospel”.  In it, he made clear that he is merely pointing to the Church’s Social doctrine…. That Doctrine … specifically rejects collectivism and socialism by name.  It recognizes that all of society is ordered to the individual and that the individual is not created to serve society….  In short, Catholic Doctrine absolutely rejects all big government, central economic planning, elite groups at the top and anything that violates the individual dignity of human beings.  That is why the Pope offered in that interview “I am no Marxist”.

McKalip goes on to quote from the “Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church” and the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” —

On True Free Markets

…“If by ‘capitalism’ is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a ‘business economy’, ‘market economy’ or simply ‘free economy’.”

On False “Free” Markets:

“…. But if by ‘capitalism’ is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative. In this way a Christian perspective is defined regarding social and political conditions of economic activity, not only its rules but also its moral quality and its meaning.”

On the Responsibility of the State:

”Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can   enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly . . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations, which make up   society.”

McKalip summarizes –

“So to be clear, Pope Francis is attacking the practices of an elite who sit atop an unnatural economic system. That is a system in which the elite set the rules, debauch our currency, and invent wealth redistribution programs ostensibly to serve the poor, but that really serve politicians and the rich. The Pope rightfully points to an economy of “Exclusion” and “inequality”. Such economic problems are present in the one created by global bankers and politicians cause massive economic bubbles in the housing markets that then burst and cause major economic exclusion and inequality which cause massive economic crashes and displace people from their homes or cause them to lose life savings.”

McKalip’s analysis is supported by Donald Devine, also writing in The Federalist.  Devine argues that the Pope’s view of capitalism may have been tainted by his experience in Argentina, which at the dawn of the 20th Century was “among the ten wealthiest nations per capita in the world,” but dropped to 70th one hundred years later, mostly due to the “crony capitalism” (which I would call Fascism – private ownership of state sanctioned companies) described by McKalip. Devine explains –

“In Argentina, Peron created what was perhaps the first comprehensive welfare state, trading benefits to the masses for their political support. Since there never were enough funds for everyone, a state capitalism under strong political regulation was developed to direct benefits to powerful clients such as unions and producers without so fettering the businesses as to deprive him (Peron) of the wealth needed to support his regime. Under Argentina’s many forms of repressive government, capitalists could only survive by being political partners of the state, sometimes its power behind the throne but more often too powerful to eliminate but clearly having to defer to state power to remain in business.”

All of this should be very familiar to an American audience. The extreme reaction from Left and Right is perplexing to me. Those of us who pay attention to politics and economics in today’s United States are very familiar with the idea of Wall Street versus Main Street, with the bailout of big national banks to the disadvantage of local and regional banks: To the obscene subsidies offered Solyndra and other “green energy” companies, and the war on disfavored coal companies: To tax breaks offered to rich farmers who don’t farm and movie studios that produce lousy movies: To a Washington DC area that is now the home of seven of the ten richest counties in the country.

Actually, in The Transom Ben Domenech expresses it better than I can by quoting Richard Reeves

America, in 2014: The affluent, the squeezed, and the entrenched. “At the top, we can see an elite doing well in a labor market offering big returns to human capital. This is perhaps not the just the top 1% (much though politics might be easier if that were so) but, say, the top decile, or 10%, of the income distribution.

“This stratum is not only prospering economically. For the people on this top rung, education levels are high and rising. Families are planned, marriages strong, neighborhoods safe and rich in social capital, networks plentiful, BMIs low and savings rates high.

“Below this affluent class is a broad swath sometimes dubbed the ‘squeezed middle.’ This group have decent labor market participation rates, but wages that are rising slowly. In many cases, two wages are needed to support the family. They own a home, but are not otherwise wealthy. Savings exist for emergencies or one-off expenditures, but run out fast if the household has a serious downward shock to income. Private schooling is rarely an option, financially…

“At the bottom of the social scale are those whose poverty is entrenched. Labor market attachment is weak, with many people in long-term unemployment. Teen pregnancy is still heard of, unlike in most communities today. Poverty is felt in most domains of life – crime, health, education, parenting, drug addiction and housing. The growing economic segregation of neighborhoods further isolates this group from chances of work, better schooling or valuable social networks. Upward intergenerational mobility rates are low.”

Our government is busy picking winners and losers in the economy based solely on political considerations, while median incomes have fallen, jobs disappear, and the people are forced to rely on food stamps to survive. THIS is what the Pope was objecting to. And it is far worse in many of the countries of Africa, Asia and South America. He is right – working people are being trampled under the feet of a self-centered elite, and no one is blowing the whistle on it – except Pope Francis. Thank God for him.

Older Posts »



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.