Three Michigan pastors launched a Federal lawsuit challenging recent ‘hate crime’ legislation as unconstitutional.   If any references denouncing homosexuality or condemning it as ‘deadly’ behavior  fall under this so-called crime definition, then reading certain portions of the Bible would make criminals out of preachers and Sunday school teachers.  These courageous pastors have decided to take the lead in fighting this foolishness in the courts.  One well known pastor is Bridgeport preacher, Renee Oullette.  We applaud and support men and women, churches and institutions that are striving to keep this nation a Bible nation!  Below are related artlicles.

The American citizenry is being battered from multiple attacks and from multiple directions. It is overwhelming. The rapid fire onslaught of domestic and foreign crises seems to be pressing our national capacities and resolve. Our country’s lungs are burning from exertions and it’s muscles are aching from last efforts. Our existence is in the balance. Citizens are frozen with inability and fear. Some are blind with apathy and indulgence. The gates are being overrun by the barbarians of globalism and self interest. The national gatekeepers of every branch of government have and continue to fail us. Is there a hope of renewal and national survival?
 
The answer is an astounding “YES!”. Bible advocates, though much maligned are and will continue to be the reason for such optimism. While most Americans ‘twitter’ away their thoughts on who is ‘dancing with the stars’, or ‘facebook’ their picks for Sunday’s ‘NFL’ match ups, a real chasm of destruction widens. This week alone, congress will vote to control Americans, cradle to grave, with “healthcare reform.” Afghanistan “flare ups” threaten to critically “break” our military. The dollar is dying, the deficit is raging, and the banks continue to go unaccountable for any of it. The Supreme Court takes on the gun rights issue yet again. The Federal government is consolidating power, loosening immigration policy, and supporting homosexual rights.  These domestic issues pale in comparison to the increasing threat of nuclear proliferation and foreign conflicts.
 
World War Three is having it’s opening salvos as we pen these words as North and South Korea, China and Taiwan, India and Pakistan all “test” fire missiles on a daily basis. Of course, the rhetoric and scope of calamity between Israel and Iran is truly apocalyptic. Certain media figures cast blame and expose error, but where is the fix? What are the answers? Can anything be done? Does Obama hold our salvation is his hands?
 
The Scriptures reveal the source of our hope. “When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of   the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.” -Isaiah 59:19. It is now His battle and in His hands. Our rest is in the calm assurance that God is right, fights for the right and therefore that the right prevails . . . always! It then behooves us to be right and do right. The analogy is this, we put up our resistance, we stand up for the right. When the gates are overrun, and the enemies are on top of us . . . listen for the trumpet of the cavalry.  Yes, God uses human instruments, but sometimes He Himself does a divine coup d’ tat for His own people, His own will, and in accordance with His own Word. Let us stand, let us fight, but above all, let us be right!  Claim Isaiah 59:19, and be willing to be His standard.

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091013.html

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed
for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn,
that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than
to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide
new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance
of these Colonies.”

I would argue that we, like our patriot forebears, have also endured
“patient sufferance.” For at least a half-century, we have patiently endured
the erosion and abridgment of our freedoms and liberties.  We have watched
the federal government become an overbearing and meddlesome Nanny State that
pokes its nose and sticks its fingers in virtually everything we do. We
cannot drive a car, buy a gun, or even flush a toilet without Big Brother’s
permission. We are taxed, regulated, and snooped-on from the time we are
born to the day we die. And then after we are dead, we are taxed again.

In the same way that Jefferson and Company patiently suffered up until that
shot was fired that was heard around the world, we who love freedom today
are likewise patiently suffering “a long train of abuses and usurpations.”
In fact, I would even dare say that these States United have become a
boiling caldron of justifiable frustration and even anger.

Accordingly, it is incumbent upon us to very seriously and thoughtfully
examine those principles that we absolutely will never cede or surrender. We
have already surrendered much of the freedom that was bequeathed to us by
our forefathers. We are now to the point that we must define those
principles that form our “line in the sand” and that we will not surrender
under any circumstance. Either that, or we must admit to ourselves that
there is nothing–no principle, no freedom, no matter how sacred–that we
will not surrender to Big Government.

Here, then, are those principles that, to me, must never be surrendered. To
surrender these liberties to Big Government would mean to commit idolatry.
It would be sacrilege. It would reduce us to slavery. It would destroy our
humanity. To surrender these freedoms would mean “absolute Despotism” and
would provide moral justification to the proposition that such tyranny be
“thrown off.”

*The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Men without guns are not free men; they are slaves. Men without guns are not
citizens; they are subjects. Men without guns have lost the right of
self-defense. They have lost the power to defend their families and protect
their properties. Men without guns are reduced to the animal kingdom,
becoming prey to the Machiavellians among them who would kill them for sport
or for their own personal pursuits. As King Jesus plainly ordered, “He that
hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” (Luke 22:36) This we
will do–at all costs.

*The Right to Own Private Property

Like the right of self-defense, the private ownership of property is a
God-given right that is rooted in the Sacred Text. As God told Moses, “Thou
shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set
in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD thy
God giveth thee to possess it.” (Deut. 19:14)

In fact, the history of Western Civilization is replete with the examples of
free men who were determined (even at the cost of their very lives) to
defend the right to own property. Without private property rights, men are
reduced to serfs and servants. Like chattel, they feed themselves by
another’s leave. This we will not do.

*The Right to Train and Educate Our Children

Education has never been the responsibility of the State. From time
immemorial, education has been the right and responsibility of the family.
This, too, has its foundation in the Sacred Volume. “And, ye fathers,
provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and
admonition of the Lord.” (Eph. 6:4)

Therefore, the absolute right of homeshooling or private/parochial/Christian
schooling must never be surrendered. Homeschooling, especially, is
fundamental to freedom. It is not a coincidence that throughout history,
most totalitarian governments forbade parents homeschooling their children.
Any government–federal, State, or local–that forbids, or even restricts,
the right of parents to homeschool their children has taken upon itself the
uniform of a tyrant.

*The Freedom of Speech and Worship

Speech and worship are matters of the heart and conscience (Luke 6:45;
John 4:24). Only tyrants seek authority over matters of the heart. But, of
course, that is what tyrants do: they seek to control men’s thoughts and
beliefs.

Hence, the alternative media is essential to liberty: the Internet, short
wave radio, as well as independent magazines and periodicals. It is almost
superfluous to say that there is no such thing as a free and independent
press among the mainstream news media today. In fact, the major media more
resembles a propaganda machine than it does a free press.

The same can be said for most of the mainstream churches in America today.
They more resemble havens for politically correct, Big-Government ideology
than they do bastions of Bible truth. Therefore, home-churches and
non-establishment churches are increasingly requisite to a free people.

*The Right to Determine One’s Own Healthcare

The marriage of Big Government and Big Medicine has created a healthcare
monster. Already, the dispensing of medical treatment is micromanaged by Big
Brother in a way that has resulted in skyrocketing costs and inferior care
(and in some cases, even death). President Obama’s universal health care
initiatives that are sure to come (in one form or another) will only
exacerbate an already untenable situation.

Free men and women absolutely have the right to refuse vaccinations for
themselves and their children. Forced vaccinations (of any kind) are an
assault against the very foundation of freedom. Free men have the right to
choose their own physicians, their own hospitals, their own insurance
programs, etc. They also have the right to refuse any and all of the above.

God is Creator. He is also Healer (Exodus 15:26). Therefore, how men choose
to seek God’s healing is a private matter between them and God. Alternative
medicine is a right. Already, our military personnel are used as human
guinea pigs to test a variety of drugs and chemicals. Public schools also
require forced vaccinations. And now the push is on to force the general
population to take the Swine Flu vaccine. At the current pace, it won’t be
long until all alternative medicines and treatments will be illegal and the
federal government will be America’s doctor. This is not acceptable.

*The Right to Life

2000 years of Western Civilization have perpetually reconfirmed that life is
a gift of God. Both Biblical and American history repeatedly honor God as
the Source and Sustainer of man’s existence. Therefore, evils such as
abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia must be vehemently resisted. It is bad
enough that any government (especially one such as ours) would legalize
abortion, but the concept of FORCED abortion, infanticide, or euthanasia
could only be regarded as a despotic attack on life and liberty of the
gravest proportion. In fact, under Natural Law, such an attack would remove
said government from the protection of Heaven and would place it in a state
of war.

*The Right to Live as a Free and Independent People

God separated the Nations (Genesis 11). Therefore, it is absolutely
necessary that we Americans maintain our independence and national
sovereignty. We simply cannot (and will not) allow ourselves to become part
of any hemispheric or global union.

There they are: seven freedom-principles that are not negotiable. As
Jefferson said, we are “disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable.” But
cross these lines and free men must do what free men must do: “throw off
such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

(c) Chuck Baldwin

Killing of anti-abortion protester has both sides questioning violence

Already, there are small signs that common ground is being found regarding the use of violence, no matter where it’s directed.

By Mark Guarino

CHICAGO

The murder of an anti-abortion protester outside Detroit Friday is forcing both sides of the abortion issue to address their traditional roles in the long-standing debate.

James Pouillon, a local man known in the community for his 20-year street protests aimed at ending abortion, was shot and killed outside a high school in suburban Owosso early Friday morning while staging his usual protest involving large photos of mutilated fetuses.

Within hours police named a suspect: Harlan James Drake. Mr. Drake killed two people that day, but the death of Mr. Pouillon is drawing attention because it is the first abortion-related murder since the May shooting death of Dr. George Tiller, a Wichita, Kan. physician who performed abortions, in the foyer of a Catholic church. A staunch anti-abortion advocate was charged.

Since news of the shootings broke Friday, national organizations representing both the anti-abortion and abortion rights movements released statements to frame the murder against data — either aborted fetuses or assassinated medical personnel — they say is essential in understanding how their side deals with violence or the threat of violence every day.

Shaun Kenney, executive director of the American Life League in Washington, one of the nation’s largest pro-life organizations, called Pouillon a “true pro-life hero” and said his murder on Sept. 11 was “a terrible irony” for bringing “to mind the 50 million innocent lives lost to abortion.”

On Saturday, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, condemned the murder and said the pro-choice side knows “all too well the chilling effect that shootings and other forms of violent intimidation have on people who have strongly held beliefs about this most personal issue.” The organization reports that eight abortion clinic workers in the US have been murdered since 1993.

Because the majority of violence surrounding the abortion issue usually involves threats or acts against clinics, resulting in federal and state protection laws, the murder of an anti-abortion advocate is reversing the traditional roles of both sides and, in that process, perhaps even forcing both to look at it with a new perspective.

Already, there are small signs that common ground is being found regarding the use of violence, no matter where it’s directed.

Keenan called Pouillon’s murder “senseless violence” and offered condolences to the families involved. Kenney said it wanted to “renew” its “call for peace and prayer as the only remedies for the culture of violence.”

Doug Levesque, the pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church outside Owosso, says he is already sensing “a solidarity of spirit” among people in the city, population 15,000, who share different points of view on abortion.

“I think people are [saying] ‘this is just craziness’. There are so many other things we can do. We can argue, we can rally. It’s not worth shooting each other over,” he says.

Mr. Levesque says Pouillon attended his church “numerous times” over the past few years and was known as a “caustic” abortion protester who “would have been thrilled” to learn that his murder was considered the antithesis of the Tiller case.

After the Tiller case, Levesque says he wrote op-ed pieces to the local newspaper condemning the use of violence in the abortion debate, even though he personally agreed that Tiller’s efforts resulted in “cold-blooded murder.” He said Pouillon felt the same.

“Jim would say Dr. Tiller killed 60,000 babies but Jim would never say, ‘let’s kill somebody’,” says Levesque. “I think the pro-choicers are the same way when they say ‘we support women’s right but it’s not worth senseless violence’. Even Jim didn’t deserve that.”

Since the shootings, he says he is sensing people around Owosso are making efforts to “look into each others eyes” and find “a connection” rather than decamp. It can only happen “by living together.”

Article can be seen at http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/09/12/killing-of-anti-abortion-protester-has-both-sides-questioning-violence/

Also see Dr. Levesque’s article concerning the Tiller murder. http://biblenation.org/2009/06/“tiller-murder”-a-sad-saga-of-abortion-in-america/

I am often dismayed at the lack of public outcry and denouncement of evil by common folk. Such lamenting should not be reserved for courts and media alone. While liberals scream, “Save the whales!”, they often remain strangely silent on the useless and cold-blooded murder of yet to be born children. Conservatives are often the first to shout, “Off with his head!” before a fair hearing is complete. I am staunchly conservative and against abortion in any form, yet I am also against pre-meditated vengeful murder in any form. Murder is wrong! Killing of our fellow man should make us shudder. I will not be hypocritical in my silence or in my public denunciations. Abortion is murder! Also . . .

The murder of Dr. Tiller was wrong.

It is hard for most of America to “feel bad” for such a character. I admit my heart does not ache for Dr. Tiller the way it breaks for the victims of abortion. (In fact, I have had to actually work up any sorrow for him at all.) However, our sense of right and wrong must remain in tact. We must not become the monsters we oppose by delineating between the murder of a middle aged doctor, and an unseen infant. And yet, we must remain confident in the ways and means of God to dispense judgment.

The judgment of Dr. Tiller was complete.

While murder and judgment seem to go together, they are two different things. The ‘Tiller Killer’ will receive justice through courts and laws. Such enforcement is ordained in Scripture. But what of justice for the countless humans killed at the point of their own birth? Such a cold blooded killer for hire cannot and will not escape the just hand of God – in this life or the next. Allowing a long cruel bout with a debilitating disease, frustrating and sickening treatments, and dying a thousand painful deaths while losing all fortune and family would have been my choice for such a man. Then again, I am not God, and he did not die that way.

The repentance and reformation of Dr. Tiller would have been more desirable.

Dr. Tiller died in a few horror filled moments, after a reasonably long and experienced life – something he denied his own victims. What if he would have practiced a different form of medicine? Would his end have been different? We will never know. God reformed certain killers, like Moses or Paul, but the grace of God seemed absent from Dr. Tiller’s life. And now I imagine an eternity of torment in the hottest flames of hell for such a tyrant. Like Pharaoh, Nero, and Hitler, Tiller will forever be a bad guy, numbered among baby killers. His opportunity to change, to do right, to be saved, is over. Cold blooded, premeditated murder is wrong and will always be judged.

The legacy of Dr. Tiller will forever be bloody and despicable.

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” -Prophet Isaiah (5:20)

BNS:  What worldview, in your opinion, influenced the thinking of the founding fathers?

I think the first thing to keep in mind is the founding fathers were not a monolithic  group.   They didn’t come out of the same religious tradition, or the same political, or regional backgrounds.  They came from different parts of the country with different interests, different professional backgrounds.  And they were influenced by a variety of worldviews, perspectives, and the like.  Clearly they lived in a Biblically-literate culture.  Christianity was, I would say, probably the most dominant cultural influence.  But they were also being influenced by other ideas, some of which are coming from the other side of the Atlantic.  Some of them, a small number of them, were being influenced by Enlightenment ideals, or the ideas of classical Republicanism, Whig political tradition.  So, they were influenced by a variety of perspectives.  But I think most of them are going to be viewing these different perspectives largely through a Christian lens.

BNS:  Did our founding fathers reference the Bible from a personal knowledge and interest, or was it a political thing to do at the time?

I think that’s a very good question because it really gets to the heart of what I think is one of the most important questions when talking about the Bible in the American founding, and that is for what purposes did this generation use the Bible?  Now the truth of the matter is they used the Bible for a whole variety of reasons, depending on the context, or the time at which they used the Bible.  There are times they used the Bible for purely literary allusions.  They are trying to pick examples from history, from literature, that their audience will know and understand.  And the Bible would have been one of the major sources for that kind of literary allusion.  Sometimes they would have used the Bible for rhetorical effect.  The language of the Bible, especially the King James Bible, carries with it a certain authority, a certain seriousness.  And so, occasionally you’d find this generation using the Bible, or Bible-like language, to convey that kind of authority or seriousness, or to bring solemnity to a particular discourse.  There are other times when you’re going to find them using the Bible to paint a parallel between their own experience and perhaps the experience of the children of Israel as described in the Old Testament.  Other times they use the Bible to make theological points about who is God, the nature of God, and most especially from their perspective how God deals with human beings in the here and now.  So, you find this generation using the Bible for a lot of different reasons, a lot of different purposes.  You have to read this literature in its context.  I don’t think we can make a generalized statement about why they used the Bible, but understand they used the Bible for a variety of reasons and we have to read each example in its context to understand and appreciate why they’re using the Bible.

BNS:  Does one historical figure come to mind where you would say he had an adamant Biblical worldview, even almost ignoring any other influence?

There were certainly founding fathers who are very devout and pious Christians, who want to reflect that piety in all their actions including their involvement in politics.  I would identify people like John Jay, first chief justice of the United States and one of the co-authors of the Federalist Papers.  I would also include Samuel Adams, Elias Boudinot president of the Continental Congress, Oliver Ellsworth, Roger Sherman two men that came out of the state of Connecticut.  Roger Sherman is very much involved in the founding of the American republic.  He was one of only two men to sign three organic expressions of American law:  the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the United States Constitution.  Sherman was a member of the first congress involved in framing the first amendment.  Someone else that I would include is someone like John Witherspoon, leader of the Presbyterian community in the United States, also very involved in politics.  He sat on over one hundred communities in the continental congress, president of what was then called the College of New Jersey, today known as Princeton.  A very devout man who brought his faith with him into the public realm.

BNS:  Did Thomas Jefferson intend for any reference to religion to be excluded from all public discourse when he used the metaphor ‘wall of separation’?

Well, I think the wall of separation metaphor is used today in ways that Jefferson probably would not recognize and might even repudiate.  Looking at his record as a public official I think we would have to conclude that Jefferson did not mean and did not intend to exclude all references to religion and even references to God from public life.  Jefferson himself in numerous public statements made references to God.  You might want to look at what today we call the state of the union address, in his annual messages to Congress he would frequently make references to God and our need to be thankful to God.  Now I wouldn’t suggest that Jefferson was an Orthodox Christian necessarily, but I don’t think he intended to exclude religion and religious expressions from all aspects of public life.

BNS:  In your opinion, what are the dangers of a Bible-illiterate society?

I think that to the extent that many of our expressions, many of our idioms, our manners of communicating with each other are based on ideas, concepts, and allusions to the Bible.  I think it hinders our ability to communicate to each other.  If you take a common expression like, ‘lion’s den’, or ‘Damascus road experience’, or ‘handwriting on the wall’, or ‘forbidden fruit’, the kinds of expression that work their way into popular discourse, if you lack or lose knowledge where these phrases come from it really hinders our ability to communicate to each other.  So, to that extent I think it’s useful, valuable, to be literate in the Bible and how the Bible has informed our culture and in our manner of expression and speaking to one another.

BNS:  What, if any, major events in history participated in the decline of Bible literacy? 

I think there have been certain forces of modernity, perhaps, in the last several hundred years that have emphasized the rational over the transcendent, that have wanted to marginalize matters of faith, to privatize matters of faith.  We see this not only in political ideas but we see it in decisions of our courts, limiting the expression of our religiosity in the public square, those kinds of things.  I think to some extent that has had an impact on the ability of traditional Christianity and Biblical faith in particular to influence the broader culture.

Professor Dreisbach’s principal research interests include American constitutional law and history, First Amendment law, church-state relations, and criminal procedure. He has written extensively on these topics. He has authored or edited five books and numerous articles in scholarly journals. Among the courses that Professor Dreisbach teaches are American Legal Culture, Issues in Civil Justice, Civil Justice Systems and the Constitution, and The Constitution and Criminal Procedure. 

A man named Demas once left his chosen path of Christian service because he “loved this present world.”  The minefield of choices lying astride of God’s prescribed path was a danger two millennia ago and prompted Paul of Tarsus to warn young Timotheus that, in the last days, men would be “lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God.” (II Timothy 3:4).  These last days are certainly more perilous than ever and the proliferation of pleasures have compounded the difficulty to pursue right paths an hundred fold.

Roots and Fruits

We Americans have received the fruits of a Biblical culture including prosperity and consumer freedoms.  However, we have exported these cultural blessings without exporting with equal vigor their foundational premises.  The world, in turn, and in a great degree sees us as a devouring demon of all that men can produce.  They imagine a greedy never-satisfied dragon whose insatiable appetite will destroy all that is decent and good.  Can we blame them?  Are we proud of such a self-centered and incongruous reputation?  Is this ill repute also being passed off by other competing ideologies as the fruits of Christianity?  We must do more to defend and promote the roots of our Biblical ideology.

Love Not the World

Bible advocates must heed what we read and practice the principles that we preach.  It does us no service to play into Madison Avenue’s marketing schemes and become consumed with houses, cars, techno-gadgets, and passing fashions.  Do we need hair plugs, teeth whiteners, and imported shoes in order to set ourselves apart as lovers of God or are we copying worldly errors?  As adamantly as we proclaim a right to life and the institution of marriage we must herald the principles of self-restraint, holy living, and decrying evil. “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)

The Bible’s Focus

A final and ultimate objective of a culture whose core is from Biblical thought and conscience should be to champion truth, speak only faith filled-reason, and unashamedly herald the Gospel of Jesus Christ (John 14:6,Acts 3:26,Romans 1:16).  It is no crime to love God or to carry that love into every aspect of life and society.  It is both possible and practical to be a courier of the love of God into the courtroom and the classroom; the boardroom and the battlefield; the legislative forum and the lights of Broadway (II Corinthians 2:14-17).  Jesus gave the greatest commandment, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” (Matthew 22:37).

Comparative Statistics:

In 2004, Americans gave 65.5 billion to churches and other charitable organizations.1

In comparison, in 2005 the average American spent 589 billion on entertainment and food away from home. It is estimated that Americans will spend over $40 billion on their pets in 2007, and by 2010 over $60 billion will be spent on weight-loss programs.2

According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics the average American in 2006 spent 12 minutes a week involved in religious and spiritual activities.

In comparison during the same year Americans spent 8.5 hours each week involved in leisure and sport activities. 3

1Data from www.generousgiving.org, Statistics & Trends: Spending Priorities.

2Consumer Expenditures in 2005, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics Report 998.

3Data from www.bls.gov

I recently spent an enjoyable afternoon with a former colleague that I taught with for 3 years. As we were catching up on our lives and some of the lives of our students, he informed me that one of my former students was on a search for truth by testing all of the World’s major religions to embrace their truth. Without dismissing him entirely, let me say anyone on that quest is to be admired on an elementary level. Most people live a lifetime and never ponder the great questions of life.

Who am I?

Where did I come from?

Where am I going?

Actually, I felt we covered these questions as we addressed the purpose of life in our Bible class. However for some, that may not be enough. Truth is a personal discovery, like happiness, it is an inside job. Some people dream of finding truth, others put their dreams in motion.

In the bestselling book, The Secret Rhonda Byrne says her personal journey for truth led her to the ancient texts and world religions. Her conclusion essentially is that the secret to life is the Law of Attraction.  We are attracted to the things we think about and to the people we resemble in life. Is this so unusual? Is this the secret to life? We join clubs and leagues that associate with people just like us. We do business with people we like who resemble our values and make us comfortable with them.

In all of my years in business I never known of someone to say “my supplier has nothing in common with me, as a matter of fact, we argue over every little detail, we are polar opposites, but you know what, I just keep buying from him because he has the best product”. I seriously doubt that conversation would take place for long. No, the customer would find a supplier he could tolerate being around, or insist the company send another representative to service his account.

If anyone truly wanted to find the secret to life, their journey would have to begin with scripture. Psalm 111:10 “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments,”  again the psalmist says “The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant”. Psalm 25:14

The secret and it’s really no secret, fear God and keep his commandments. Life surely is a one act play. There is no do-over and take it from the top again. We get one opportunity to get it right. We all have the great enterprise of exploring the scriptures and applying them to our lives. In this respect, some people fail miserably and some people succeed beyond their richest expectations. Why is that? I believe it is found in the little word desire: internal drive and initiative. “Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh and intermeddleth with all wisdom.”  Proverbs 18:1 Our mission to find truth is motivated  by our own desire to find it.

For us, Life is a blank check waiting for us to fill in the amount and endorse it with the signature of our heart’s desire. This is our commitment to the secret of life.

Visit the Michigan Association of Christian Schools website.

The Meaning of Public

What does the word ‘public’ in public education really mean?  If it means free access for children of American citizens, that’s great.  If it means free daytime childcare for illegal aliens then let’s redefine the word.  Or better yet, let’s get back to the original definition all together.

‘Public’ does not mean government interference into parental affairs.  It does not mean endless funding for poor production through federal, state and local taxes.  It does not mean tax funded unions can virtually dictate what is taught or not taught.  Lastly, it does not mean ’secular’ or without relation to faith and religion.

An Acceptable Term

There is nothing wrong with the term ‘public’ education if that education is funded locally, determined locally, reflects local values, and is free to pursue local will.  Federal and state mandates have gone wild, removing all local distinctions and thereby creating a Washington D.C. inspired, institutionally secular, anti-religious machine.  Students success is based upon establishing a utopian social standard rather that academic achievement.  ‘Public’ should not be equated to a government mandated or administrated superstructure.

A Better Model

‘Public’ can mean parental.  Parent initiated, parent inspired, parent involved education.   King Solomon wisely charged, “My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother:  For they shall be an ornament of grace unto thy head, and chains about thy neck.”  -Proverbs 1:8-9.  This ‘parental’ distinction is one that makes ‘private’ education perform better and produce a better product.

‘Public’ can mean performance.  Funding should based on performance, and so should opportunity.  Schools that perform well should be funded well.  This would motivate others to copy or compete for more funding based upon successful models and hard work rather than be funded by artificial mandates.  Students that perform well should get additional schooling.  Who say’s we should have 20 years of available daycare for every student, especially poorly performing students?  Eight years of acceptable performance can open the door to two more then two more.  Of course, special needs children are always the exception. “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”  -II Timothy 2:15.

‘Public’ should include ‘choice’.  Local peculiarities should be allowed to be included in public offerings.  Farming classes, particular ethnic histories, even Bible surveys should be reflected in that localities ‘public’ education.  Most communities (80%)  would choose to allow academic instruction regarding the Bible.  ‘Public’ education could then be defined by wisdom and knowledge rather that by pride or Washington D.C.’s so called false measurements of equality in the classroom standards.