John H Armstrong

Judge Sotomayor: A Look Beyond the Partisan Questions

By now we know that Judge Sonia Sotomayor has faced a Senate committee's inquiry and passed the process without any serious hitch. Isn't the goal that she escape a slip and get confirmed? Since the term "borking" came into our legal experience it seems this is almost always the case in these high profile nominations. Sotomayor will be confirmed by the U. S. Senate and soon will serve on the Supreme Court, replacing Justice David Souter. For most people the issue of her confirmation was primarily about partisanship. Where does she stand on certain issues that routinely come before the Supreme Court? What is her judicial approach to interpreting law? Can we get her approved and make sure the court reflects our partisan views? Is she pro-life or pro-choice? Where does she stand on guns?

The wild card in all these proceedings is that once a judge is appointed we never know how they will really vote or respond once on the Court. More than one justice has showed a remarkable ability to think and then respond with care and justice once they are appointed for life. I, for one, think this is exactly what the framers had in mind. It may be that the Court has gone too far at times (such as in Roe v. Wade) but in the big picture the Court has served its noble purpose quite well.

I read a number of opinion pieces about the Sotomayor appointment. She is an admirable person who will serve as a great role model to millions of Hispanics and women. I welcome this aspect of her choice. Many have suggested she will handle herself well. She did in the interviews before the Senate committee. But almost no one I heard asked a more important question: Does she possess a first-rate legal mind and can she actually present clear and cogent opinions in writing? I see this question as totally non-partisan precisely because we have had justices from the left and the right who could pass my test with flying colors. Sotomayor may prove me wrong here but I suggest she lacks legal brilliance. She is a fine person, with a great human story and she is quite capable. She will likely become a "safe" vote for the left on many issues. But does she have the intellectual heft to write opinions that shape the law and help us understand how it really works in the twenty-first century? "Does she have," to put it simply, "a first-rate legal mind?"

Newsweek has a now famous column called "Conventional Wisdom" (CW). It is the kind of "quick glance" stuff that you look at for only a few seconds if you read the magazine. In the July 27 issue CW said of Sotomayor, "Sets new standard for convincingly evading politically unanswerable questions." I think that says it quite well.

This is why I was so surprised when I read Washington Post syndicated columnist Richard Cohen asking the very same question I have been asking about Sotomayor since President Obama first announced his choice. Cohen, clearly a social and political liberal, noted that the two justices on the current court who write the most compelling opinions are Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice John Roberts. Cohen is not an advocate for their views but he knows good writing when he sees it. The irony is that Cohen disagrees with Scalia on many legal opinions.

Cohen says, "Sotomayor will do, and will do very nicely, as a personification of what ails the American left. She is, as everyone has pointed out, in the mainstream of American liberalism, a stream both intellectually shallow and preoccupied with the past." Quite an admission I think. Cohen suggests that Sotomayor is particularly disappointing on capital punishment (she does not oppose it) to cite an example that troubles him as a liberal. He writes, "Contrast her approach to this and other problems with what Antonin Scalia has done with issues close to his own heart. Where in all of Sotomayor's opinions, speeches and now testimony is there anything approaching Scalia's dissent in Morrison v. Olson in which, alone, he not only found fault with the law creating special prosecutors, but warned about how it would someday be abused." Cohen says his admiration for Scalia is constrained by the fact that he often believes him to be wrong. But, he adds, "his thinking is fresh and his writing is often bracing." Precisely my point. Sotomayor shows no ability to do the same.

Cohen concludes, in a statement that I share from a more politically conservative vantage point: "This is the sad state of both liberalism and American politics. First-class legal brains are not even nominated lest some senator break into hives at the prospect of encountering a genuinely new idea."

If you want a liberal illustration of the point Cohen makes about Scalia remember Justice Thurgood Marshall, a first-rate thinker and writer if there ever was one. On both the left and the right we seem to fear genuinely new ideas that are faithful to our past but reflective of our present and future context. The Sotomayor appointment reveals that the process by which we confirm these judges is seriously flawed but so are the nominees we are generally given for the Court by our presidents. What the liberals did to Robert Bork, a brilliant jurist who scared the daylights out of the left, has left the country in a sad state where we now settle for appointees who can get through the process. It makes me grateful that Scalia and Roberts did get confirmed. John Roberts will leave a huge mark on this court if he serves out the normal course of his life expectancy as Chief Justice.

The Simple, Godly Wisdom of Ian Thomas

I mentioned last week my visit with Stuart and Jill Briscoe. One of the subjects we discussed was the Capernwray Missionary Fellowship of Torchbearers, begun by the late Ian Thomas. I first met Major Ian Thomas through his book, The Saving Life of Christ. I later read several more of his books on the “deeper life.” I seem to recall reading all four of his books at some point. I went through a time when this emphasis seemed too mystical to my analytical mind. The older I have become the more I prize the “Christ life” in me by faith in the risen life of the Savior.

The late Ian Thomas was born in London on September 13, 1914 and died at 92 years of age on August 1, 2007. He is probably best known as the founder of both Torchbearers International and the Capernwray Missionary Fellowship of Torchbearers, both begun in the United Kingdom. Today there are Capernwray Fellowships in twenty-three locations around the globe. Major Thomas opened the twenty-third just four months prior to his death.

Stuart and Jill Briscoe were trained as young believers at Capernwray. This led to Stuart’s itinerant ministry in his twenties and thirties. As a result of his travels to America he was eventually called to pastor Elmbrook Church in Wisconsin, where he served for thirty years. Since 2000 he has traveled, with Jill, to missionaries and missions all over the world. The Briscoes give themselves to those who cannot afford to have such outside teachers serve in their midst, thereby carrying on the very ministry that Major Thomas gave to them so many years ago. Many others, perhaps much less known, have also gone and done likewise.

When I talked about Major Thomas with Stuart and Jill I heard a story about Major Thomas that moved me in a simple, powerful way. Stuart said Major Thomas said that we all should: (1) Go where you’re sent; (2) Stay where you’re put; (3) Give what you’ve got. That underscores a great approach to ministry that I have found to be true since I got to Wheaton in 1970. I came to Wheaton, Illinois, to go to school, following the leading of the Holy Spirit to a place I had never seen before. God sent me here and I very simply followed. Here I met the power of God in revival and my life was forever change. When I had many opportunities to leave this place, often for what seemed like much “greener pastures” (larger churches and better fields of service), I stayed. I did so because of my family, my sense of mission and my unique calling. (Everyone has a unique calling I believe.) Though I sometimes struggled with the Lord about my calling I learned, over time, to give all that I had to be the person God wanted me to be in this place. I eventually learned that place was not the big issue in service. The big issue is “giving what you’ve got.”

Is the Body Sinful? Living in Hope of Resurrection

In Romans chapter six the Apostle Paul says, “For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin—because anyone who has died has been set free from sin” (verses 6–7).

The reference here to the body has created a number of serious errors over the centuries. These errors remain with us to this day demonstrating that there truly is “nothing new under the sun.”

Question: If our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit in what sense can we rightly speak of them as “sinful” or “ruled by sin?”

Some early Christian heresies said that the body of human flesh was sinful. This is not what Paul is saying here at all. He refers to the body as “ruled by sin” not just the body period. The simple, and obviously correct, way to read this text is to see that Paul is saying that the whole person who sins does so in a "sinful body." Sin is not outside the body. Sin involves the whole person, body and soul. Our physical body is good and holy according to Christian theology. Sin uses our bodies to commit acts through the choices we make but the body is not inherently sinful. This same body will be raised on the last day. Indeed, the bodily resurrection is the key to understanding Christian faith and hope.

Furthermore, Paul is not saying here that the body should be thrown away at death as a piece of sinful garbage. This same body will be raised in the last day. A funeral is thus a marvelous time to celebrate the resurrection. Symbols of that resurrection are most appropriate at funerals and texts about the resurrection should clearly be chosen for worship on a regular basis. I can never remember doing a funeral where I did not use 1 Corinthians 15 as a primary text, usually at the grave site. No truth more reveals the central message of our faith than this—on the last day this mortal flesh will be raised immortal. In the great day of resurrection both body and soul will be raised incorruptible and thus we shall ever be with the Lord, in a human body. Thanks be to God!

An American Gospel: On Family, History, and the Kingdom of God (Part Two)

In his religious memoir, An American Gospel, author Erik Reece relates the heart-breaking story of his father’s suicide. His dad, a second generation Baptist minister, took his own life at thirty-three, when Erik was only three years old. Erik describes his father as having too much “self awareness." He was controlled by a system of Christianity that felt like a penal system. Erik eventually came to his father’s dim view of Christianity and saw it as “a set of rules meant to inflict self-loathing.” This led him to look for an "American gospel."

Reece writes: “Eighteen years of compulsory churchgoing, followed by eighteen more years of trying to extract myself from the church, has convinced me that Tolstoy was right: the more Christian fundamentalism emphasizes that the kingdom of God awaits us as a reward in the afterlife, the more it ignores the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount. That is to say, the more mainstream Christianity emphasizes a theology of salvation from this world, the more it ignores Jesus’ teachings of how we should act while we inhabit this earthly realm. And the more Christianity becomes about the salvation from this world, the more it highlights our inherent sin, the sole obstacle to salvation.”

Given the brand of fundamentalism that Reece experienced in his formative years I can understand why he pits the kingdom of God in this world against the kingdom of God in the new heavens and the new earth. The obvious theological solution is to believe that Christ’s kingdom is already present in this wonderful world and not yet final but when it is it will be a recreated new earth! This “already-not yet” perspective addresses many of the concerns that Reece addresses in this magnificent story. Sadly, the religion of his grandfather, and that of his father too, knew little or nothing about the glory of creation, the victory of Christ’s resurrection and the redemption of this world by Christ making all things “new.”

Reece eventually read the Gospel of Thomas and found a life-affirming message that he suggests gives us the basis for a truly “American Gospel.” He concludes, with non-judgmental equanimity, that “I have not quite come around to Tolstoy’s belief that one must choose which kingdom to believe in—the heavenly kingdom or the kingdom that is right before us. I still cast my lot with the pragmatists and hold that if a belief in a heavenly kingdom causes one to act on the teachings of Jesus in this world, then one has no right to question such a belief.” AS I indicated above, in my reference to the already/not yet I see no reason why belief in a heavenly kingdom to come precludes acting on the teachings of Jesus with regard to this present world. Indeed, I see this as nothing less than ancient, biblical (and very non-Gnostic) Christianity.

Reece concludes that we Americans “do not tend to change our behavior simply because we are told that we should. No real political, cultural, or environmental change—the crucial paradigm shift this country needs—will come about without a fundamental change of heart, an inspired people, poetic desire to begin inventing the American future that Jefferson, Whitman, and Wright proposed.” He is, of course, quite right. The problem is that Reece does not truly understand how the good news of Jesus can actually produce this change. Sadly, his experience of Christianity gave him no basis to seriously think otherwise. I believe the truly good news of Jesus can bring about such change but with Reece I long to see the gospel liberated from the machinations of the various proponents of American fundamentalism. In this case we may well be so heavenly minded that it could be said that we have become no earthly good. A life-affirming, world celebrating good news is needed in the church if critics like Reece are to ever see what the power of God actually looks like. His book is a powerful reminded of the need for faithful understanding of the great truths of Christianity held in proper balance.

An American Gospel: On Family, History, and the Kingdom of God

One of the most famous authors of the late nineteenth century, Leo Tolstoy, once read the New Testament Gospels and then wrote a book titled: The Kingdom of God Is Within You. In his book Tolstoy argued that one cannot believe in the Sermon on the Mount and the Nicene Creed.

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus told his followers to love their enemies, turn the other cheek, to give to those who beg and to avoid all hypocritical judgments. By contrast the Nicene Creed is an assertion of the divinity of Jesus as “the only son of God.” He was born of a virgin, crucified as a bloody sacrifice for the sins of humankind and rose from the dead on the third day. Tolstoy argued that one either has to accept the Sermon’s rigorous demands for how we must act in this world or choose the Creed as a way of escaping from this world to another. He concluded, “The man who believes in a god, in a Christ coming again in glory to judge and to punish the quick and the dead cannot believe in the Christ who bade us turn the left cheek, judge not, forgive those that wrong us, and love our enemies.” For good measure the famous Russian then added, “The man who believes in the Church’s doctrine of the compatibility of welfare and capital punishment with Christianity cannot believe in the brotherhood of all men.” And later, “The man who believes in salvation through faith in the redemption or the sacraments cannot devote all his powers to realizing Christ’s moral teaching in his life.”

Erik Reece, writer in residence at the University of Kentucky, begins his powerful new memoir, An American Gospel, with these words of Leo Tolstoy. Reece, the son and grandson of Baptist ministers, deeply agrees with Tolstoy, up to a point at least, and then sets out to show why. His prose is magnificent and his story moving, especially to this son of the South and the product of the Baptists. But Reece's conclusion is not mine. His is an American blend of Emerson, Thoreau, Tolstoy, Gnosticism and the spiritual experience of William James. His primary religious text is the Gospel of Thomas and the opposite is American Christianity in its most fundamentalist forms.

Erik Reece’s grandfather was a pillar in his rural Virginia community. He explored the local mountains and rivers with his grandson but Erik soon realized that for him existence on this earth was about denying pleasure in order to prepare for the next life. Erik’s father was also a Baptist minister, though not as settled in mind and emotion as his father. By the age of thirty-three Erik's dad had experienced enough of life (he was mentally ill as Reece admits). He violently ended his own life in his bed at home with a rifle shot. This led to Erik, only three at the time, spending most of his childhood around his grandparents and later a step-father.

As a result of these human tragedies Reece grew up very conflicted about religion. He suffered terribly and eventually experienced his own breakdown. At thirty-three, the same year in which his father had ended his life, Reece found comfort in the famous Jefferson Bible. He carefully tracked Jefferson’s choices regarding what he left in the Bible and eventually discovered how close Jefferson's instincts were to the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas. (Obviously, Jefferson did not have this work in hand when he made his choices for what he kept and omitted in his own version of the Bible!) Thus began Reece's earnest attempt to put together a truly “American gospel.”

His spiritual and literary quest led him to some amazing American writers—William Byrd, Walt Whitman, William James and Lynn Margulis. The gospel he found celebrated the pleasures and glories of this earth, not of heaven. In time this gospel gave Reece both spiritual and intellectual peace within his American soul. The result of this experience is a deeply self-revealing book that stirs the soul and grips the reader in some rather profound ways. If ever there was a non-Christian sermon that can move the mind and heart this has to be it. The only problem will become obvious to thoughtful Christians—Reece did not need to reject Christian orthodoxy to find a life-affirming, earth appreciating, message of joy.

Love Believes All Things

S. Michael Craven is the president of the Center for Christ in Culture in Dallas, Texas. He is the author of a very important new book Uncompromised Faith (NavPress, 2009). Michael is my dear friend and currently serves as the chairman of the ACT 3 board of directors. We shared some time together in Dallas two weeks ago and I was refreshed again by the friendship of this dear brother. Michael writes a weekly article much the way I do with the ACT 3 Weekly. His article last Monday was so good that I want to share it with those of you who read my blog. I encourage you to sign up for Michael's Truth in Culture Weekly and to get a copy of his fine book too. You will not regret adding this thoughtful man's insights to your own mind and heart.

Love Believes All Things

S. Michael Craven

Last week I wrote of marriage and its potential to convey an essential distinction in the way we in the church can practically demonstrate the witness-bearing love for one another of which Jesus speaks. The issue of marriage within the church must be taken seriously if we want to be faithful to the gospel mission.

I hope my article served to stimulate some to action, to raise questions within your respective churches—such as, “What are we doing to promote and preserve marriages in our church?” and “Have we become indifferent to divorce?” or “Do we really understand marriage from a biblical perspective?” I hope some pastors were challenged to consider teaching on the subject beyond the popular topical level and instead address the sin and selfishness that leads to divorce. I hope others have grasped that teaching the saints about marriage serves the Great Commission by making disciples.

I now want to take up Paul’s charge that “love believes all things.” Once again, Paul is speaking about our relationships within the body of Christ. Paul is not calling for a foolish gullibility. However, being guarded against the possibility of being taken advantage of is not correct either. If love believes all things and love is our motivation, then suspicion has no place. If one has a need and we are able to meet that need, we do so without any expectation (see Matthew 5:41). You may be taken advantage of; you may suffer a loss. You may even look foolish to the world for doing so. So what? We serve one another without qualification in obedience to Christ. 

Furthermore, this passage means that we begin from a position in which we think the best of each other, rather than assuming the worst or judging another’s unspoken thoughts and motivations. I can think of no other attribute more lacking in the church today than this.

I have received many e-mails over the years from people who want me to “take on” this Christian leader or another whom they are convinced is “destroying the faith.” Often these positions against one another are political issues common to the culture wars more so than doctrinal issues. For example, such-and-such doesn’t share our emphasis (i.e., conservative) on same-sex marriage, politics, or the culture in general, so some feel justified to publicly attack because they have elevated these political positions to essentials of the Christian faith. Recent reactions to Rick Warren are an excellent example of this.

I myself have received personal attacks, such as one recently from a woman who charged me with “leading millions astray” because, according to her, I was “emphasizing relationships and community over being obedient to the Scriptures.”

I think I am actually “emphasizing relationships and community in obedience to the Scriptures,” but nonetheless, her correspondence was anything but an attempt to believe the best about me. She wrote, “You have forgotten what the Scriptures say and you have replaced it with this unbiblical mumbo jumbo … You have strayed from the path and you are dragging many people with you … you should be ashamed of yourself …. You and people like you are the single biggest reason we are ‘losing the culture war!’” Those are pretty strong words from one who claims to be my sister in Christ.

Does this mean you can’t disagree with me or any other Christian for that matter? Certainly not! Anyone who is mildly familiar with church history would see that orthodox Christians have, throughout the centuries, held differing views on a multitude of important political and theological issues. It was at the height of such controversy that the Puritan writer Richard Baxter (1615–91) issued his famous appeal: “In necessary things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, charity.” Baxter was appealing to the principles laid out in 1 Corinthians 13.

I am called to teach and preach and the Lord in his providence has afforded me the privilege to do so, but I do not think for a moment that I speak “in the name of the Lord.” I can be wrong in my efforts to process and understand the mysteries of God, and so can we all. You can hold a different opinion about this or that theological matter and we can both remain Christian. The church is filled with various and opposing interpretations of biblical doctrine that remain well within the pale of orthodoxy! Christians can clearly be wrong about some things and still be Christian. Recall Apollos who, “being fervent in the spirit,” required Priscilla and Aquila to explain “the way of God more accurately” (Acts 18:26). This would be expected among people who are saved by grace and not by knowledge, wouldn’t it?

How many times have you heard the phrase “doctrine divides?” In response, I would say it isn’t doctrine that divides us but rather epistemology. In other words, it’s what we think we know with certainty that divides us. Such certitude is presumptuous and arrogant, the height of hubris when measured against the humility of Paul, who in the same chapter on love conceded the presence of mystery when he wrote, “Now I know in part” (1 Corinthians 13:12). If the apostle Paul did not know the truth completely, then neither do you or I. The consequence of this fact should be a more humble epistemology that is more inclined to listen, to process and ponder, rather than critique and attack.

If one brother disagrees with another he can express that disagreement in a way that preserves the love and unity that Christ speaks of. Thankfully, I hear from some of these as well, such as a pastor who recently sought clarification and better understanding (very graciously) of my thesis before drawing his conclusions.

As one who challenges the church to think and question our most common assumptions in the light of Scripture, I am always deeply grateful for such brothers and sisters. They express a rare spiritual maturity and openness. The pastor and I corresponded, dialogued, and he was satisfied that his initial perception was not entirely accurate. You see, this brother began by thinking the best of me, as 1 Corinthians 13 commands, rather than the worst. We were able to dialogue, exchange ideas, and expand each others perspective—and not only was unity preserved but a relationship formed.

How often do we find ourselves being critical of others, judging others in order to feel better about ourselves? Jesus addressed this very issue in the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (see Luke 18:9–14). The question we must ask ourselves is this: Am I like the Pharisee who elevates himself above other believers, thinking “I’m the true Christian” ready to condemn those with whom I disagree? Or do I see myself as the tax collector, an undeserving sinner who humbly pleads for God’s mercy? The former is self-righteous, contentious, and divisive, displeasing to God; while the latter is “justified,” a man who is humble, judging only himself.

If we spent more time judging ourselves, critiquing our own faith, knowing the truth of our own condition, we would inevitably be a people who could not help but believe the best of one another.

Obamacare and Ending the Bush Tax Cuts, Part Two

President Obama has made the rich a popular target in his rhetoric ever since he began his campaign for the presidency in 2008. He plays on the desires of the poor and the middle class for fairness and argues that they already pay enough. It is the rich who should carry more of the burden for the rest of us. So, how will the proposed federal health care program be paid for? We need to know. The president tells us we can have great health care and pay absolutely nothing.

Basic Armstrong Premise: Anyone who tells me that I can have something great and pay nothing, at least if they represent the government, is not telling me the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There is more here than meets the eye. The rich 1.2% will pay for the rest of us! In Obama's own words, “I think the best way to fund (health care) is for people like myself who have been very lucky, to pay a little bit more.” But a “little bit more” is the problem Where does it stop? Will Congress curtail spending? You know the answer. Neither party has shown such commitment to this end at all.

There is one huge oversight in Obama’s flowery rhetoric. President Bush did cut the tax rate for the rich but he also cut the tax rates for the middle class and the poor. (Most of the poor pay no federal taxes at all so we need to be really honest about this!) Federal taxes are at a 30-year low. It seems clear now that no matter what happens with health care this is all about to change and change rather significantly. Time will tell if the economy suffers further damage from these decisions but everything in my experience says that a huge federal expenditure will not only harm economic recovery but create monster programs that will be poorly and inefficiently administered by a government work force that is already too big. The private sector is still where real growth must come in any healthy national economy.

This problem of the federal income tax only scratches the surface of our problem. In Illinois the governor wants to more than double our state income tax. In addition, almost everything that we purchase is taxed; especially gasoline, automobiles, appliances, books, computers, etc. The president can tell us that the middle class is not impacted by this plan but most of us know better. Our government cannot spend the money that it spent in the last twelve months and not raise income taxes to pay the debt. By the way, all our communities are suffering too. We spend less, thus there is less revenue from sales tax, and our real estate taxes are declining in the next year or two which will have a trickle-down impact on local services and education. The problem is rather simple—we are not raising new income levels while congress votes to spend huge amounts of money on new programs that we are constantly assured will be paid for by the rich! (We can supposedly feel good about this answer since we feel like we are getting what belongs to us and not to the rich!) Most of us have this very uneasy feeling about this kind of class rhetoric. If it sounds like smoke and mirrors that is because it is smoke and mirrors. This is why Joe the Plumber’s words became an issue in the last presidential election. Instinctively we know Joe is right. We’ve been here before and this script is one that we know too well.

If we wanted a truly fair and revolutionary approach to taxes we would either adopt the “flat tax” or the “fair tax” approach. (Illinois is one of five states that had a flat tax in 2008.) Either the flat tax or the fair tax would change the whole ball game and give us a system that was genuinely fair. I expect no Democrat in Congress will ever pursue this idea. Governor Jerry Brown (D.-CA) actually did agree with the flat tax, as do Republicans like Trent Lott (R.-Miss) and Sam Brownback (R.-Kan.) in the Senate. Steve Forbes, a thoughtful champion of tax ideas that really make sense, championed the idea in the 1996 and 2000 elections. The appeal of the flat tax is in its simplicity and fairness. You fill out one or two simple forms and that’s it. Flat tax ideas leave the wealthy with more money to invest, which in turn generates a healthier economy. They also create a sense of fairness which is fundamental in our society.

Russia, and other nations in Eastern Europe, adopted a flat tax in order to slow corruption and tax evasion. Liberal Western politicians see this as proof that we do not need this idea in the West. But the day will come, at least in my view, when we may reap the whirlwind of these massive new programs we are now creating. Someday the ordinary American will likely become engaged in a grass roots tax payer’s revolt and only then will we likely see serious change.

I am increasingly persuaded that the younger generation will lead this revolt. Why? They are the very ones with the massive college bills. They are also the ones with the bad jobs or with no job at all. And every day they face more government interference in their lives in terms of taxes and crushing burdens. When they realize this, and see how big the tax burden they bear is in terms of millions of baby boomers who took advantage of this bad system, I think we will then see positive change. It could be too late but I think this nation is pretty resilient. I think we are very likely to find a way to correct the major mistakes of the past generation once we realize we have no choice.

Obamacare and Ending the Bush Tax Cuts, Part One

The full court push is now on to pass sweeping health care legislation. The goal is to provide care for (almost) all Americans. The last time we endured this debate was in the early days of the first term of Bill Clinton. The plan then, doomed from the beginning, went down in flames. This time there is a much better chance that Congress will pass a plan of some sort. Like every American I am very interested in this issue. But like almost every American I think the devil is really in the details. This is precisely what makes me so nervous. (I'm not losing any sleep over this, however, so take my words in their context!) We are all being asked to trust the federal government to create a program that involves hundreds of thousands of administrators and more red tape than we know what to do with. In my lifetime I have learned one thing about the federal government—it does a poor job of running large programs. Not only does the government administer programs poorly but it clearly spends money wastefully. Have you ever waited in line at a Social Security office or at the Post Office? I seriously doubt that there is disagreement about my common-sense observation, at least among the overwhelming majority of Americans who are not employed by the government. (Say, are we the minority yet?)

At the same time we do have several health insurance issues in this country. Regulation is clearly needed and the government has an important role in such regulation. If that were all we needed the big debate would be over. Everyone agrees about this but the party in power wants more, much more.

I am trying to read the various “non-partisan” reports about the health insurance in order to determine what is good or bad about the legislation being formed in the House this week. House Democrats, the Associated Press reported earlier this week, plan to hit the wealthy with even higher income taxes in order to pay for their version of health care. Once again this is no real surprise. The Democrats always plan to take more from the rich and give it, as a function of government, to the poor. Some details of this plan came out earlier in the week. A family of four making $450,000 would pay $103,600 in federal income taxes, an increase of only $1,000. A single filer making the same amount would see a $7,100 increase. A family of four making $800,000 would pay $220,800 in federal income taxes, an increase of $30,000. A single filer would see a $30,700 increase. But if you make $5 million you would see an increase of $443,500. And if you are single and make $5 million you will see an increase of $452,000.

Many will argue that the rich will still be very rich regardless of these changes. I agree. But this is a huge tax burden and it is growing with every decision Congress makes to fix the nation’s problems through government initiatives and spending. GM has already become Government Motors and who thinks it will (or should) avoid bankruptcy.

What most people do not realize is that taxing the rich to pay for health insurance would represent a very significant shift away from the way Americans have financed safety net programs in the past. Social Security and Medicare are paid for with broad based payroll taxes. The rich pay more of these taxes for sure but the middle class and working poor pay a share as well. This is where my concern lies with the Obama plan that Congress seems intent on passing. Under this plan 1.2 percent of households would pay for the whole program. The surtax to be added to those making $350,000 and more would be 1%. By 2013 it could be doubled to 2% if the program is running behind budget, which many non-partisan reports suggest is inevitable. Is there any serious doubt that this will indeed happen?

The top marginal income tax rate is now 35% on all income above $372,950. Obama wants to raise the top rate to 39.6% by 2011 by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. House Democrats admit that their health surtax would increase the rate to 45%, making it the highest since 1986, when it was 50%. And some insist that there will be marginal tax rates that exceed 50%. And none of this includes all the other taxes we pay, which would drive the total amount for many of our wealthiest Americans above 60%, approaching the once high mark of 70%.

Here’s the rub. What will these tax rates do to small business owners, especially the mid-sized owners and entrepreneurs who invest loads of their own money in ventures that employ millions of Americas? No one can say for sure. These small business owners generally pay their taxes on their personal returns. Democrats argue that things will be just fine so we should trust them. They promise that business will not be hurt by their plan. But people like me remember the Carter era, and Reagan’s first term, before we finally brought these rates under serious control. We even remember with gratitude that President Clinton revised the welfare system though he did little to help with regard to the tax problem.

California Republican Wally Herger said this past weekend: “We shouldn’t have to resurrect the 1970s to remember that when tax rates go too high, people lose the incentive to build new businesses and create jobs. These massive tax increases are no substitute for real fiscal responsibility.” This is precisely my concern.

The Summer Crunch and the Ministry of ACT 3

I stay in touch with a number of other ministries like ACT 3. Several are led by my closest friends. As a result of this fellowship I know that all of us are undergoing challenging times this summer. Ministry for us has never been stronger and opportunities beckon on many fronts. I have been granted amazing freedom to speak, teach, counsel, write and encourage. A DVD will come out in August that tells our story powerfully. The future for ACT 3 looks bright beyond words. Yet these summer months, with the economy in recession, have been more than a test for us in terms of meeting our small budget. We have cut our budget several times. We cut salaries 25% last September and have made other cuts since then. We operate in a responsible manner and our board takes oversight of the mission seriously.

I write this because I need you help right now. Today!

We will not make our payroll unless we get about $2,000 by early next week. This is not a huge sum but for us it is very important. We could really use about $5,000 so we guarantee that we can finish the summer by meeting our revised/lowered budget. I am prepared to live on less, already having done this for a year, and I am prepared to make do on whatever the Lord gives to us in terms of our growth and vision. I am not prepared to back up or quit. We are on the verge of the greatest ministry we have had in seventeen-plus years of serving the church and its leaders. I believe the Lord will provide.

Would you, readers and friends who appreciate this blog and the ministry of ACT 3, help us right now? You can do this in one of two ways.

Send a check to ACT 3, P. O. Box 88216, Carol Stream, IL 60188.

Or, go to ACT 3 online and give a gift through our secure donation site. It is easy, quick and gets funds to our bank in hours.

Thanks for your help. Please keep us in your prayer as you think of various ministries that serve the church all across America. We believe that equipping leaders for unity in Christ's mission is vital to the future well-being of the whole church. If you believe this then help us if you can.

A Lovely Day With Stuart & Jill Briscoe

Most of us have role models. Children learn best from role models and the very best role model is a good parent. Sometimes our role models even become our heroes. If we actually get to know our heroes they will eventually disappoint us. But if we learn to rightly understand our role models they will become powerful guides and bring great blessing to our lives.

In 2 Thessalonians 3:6 the apostle tells believers to “follow our example” (by which he means the example of the apostles). In 2 Thessalonians 3:9 he says that the work of the apostles is to “offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate.” That is a great encouragement to all of us who influence others in Christian ministry.

It has been rightly said that “precepts may lead, but examples draw.” The Puritan Thomas Brooks concluded that “example is the most powerful rhetoric.” and Albert Schweitzer said, “Example is not the main thing in influencing others; it is the only thing.” I do agree.

I thought about these truths regarding role models last Thursday (July 16) when I drove to suburban Milwaukee (two hours from my home) to share nearly three hours of fellowship with two very special role models of mine—Stuart and Jill Briscoe.

The story of how I came to admire Stuart Briscoe goes back to 1967–68 at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. Stuart was conducting one of his itinerant journeys preaching the Bible in various parts of America. He spent the better part of a week on the university campus preaching in sorority and fraternity houses as well as in local churches. I can still remember two things about this unusual week. First, there were a large number of real conversions following Stuart’s mission. Second, I developed a deep hunger to preach the Word of God faithfully by watching Stuart speak in so many different settings. He taught the Bible and did evangelism. I wanted to do the same.

In 1969 I transferred to Wheaton College. In 1970 Stuart and Jill moved to America when Stuart became the pastor of Elmbrook Church in Brookfield, Wisconsin. When I was a graduate student at Wheaton in 1972 I planted a church. I then sought the counsel of two role models. In the case of Stuart and Jill they invited me into their home. I spent three days listening, learning and watching. I had never been in a pastor’s home for three days. The impression made upon me was lasting.

Some months later I heard Stuart answer a question in a home meeting that did not sit well with me. Being ever vigilant to make sure that my role models agreed with me about every thing I read in the Bible I began to grow disinterested in Stuart’s counsel for a period of time. I chose another well-known role model to help me frame my views of preaching and ministry in my early days in the pastorate. This brother seemed more biblically sound to my young mind. A few years later I added another role model, a man who was very much like the other brother but who was even closer to my views of preaching and ministry.

Last Thursday I told Stuart that when I made that choice back in the early 1970s it was a bad one. I regretted years later that I had not followed his example more carefully. The other pastor did nothing but teach me how to wage war and battle with others over doctrinal matters that were not central to faith in Christ. For the next twenty years or so this man, and the second one I chose a few years later, were my “pure” role models. In time both of these men invited me into their homes and pulpits. Initially I felt built up by the approval they gave to me. I did poke my head out of the clouds to ask questions these other two role models did not answer. In time my youthful role models became my critics. The pain of these experiences is still quite real but I have learned from them powerful lessons about how to not do Christian theology and ministry. As I discovered the lack of emotional and spiritual congruence in the lives of these two other men I saw my own incongruence and emotional immaturity. You can thus see why my time with Stuart and Jill was especially precious to me.

After a visit with Stuart in his office at the church (they continue to support his teaching ministry around the world) we went to lunch at a Panera Bread store. I felt like I was hanging out with a pop star. From the moment we opened the door, to the order of our meal, to the time at the table and then on the way out the door to the car, one person after another recognized Stuart and Jill and stopped to say hello. Each one thanked them for their labors and shared some personal story. Some were people from their church days but many were people from the community. Being a careful people watcher I carefully observed Stuart and Jill talking with each person. Not once did they seem weary or bothered. They were kind, gracious and energetic in their response to each person. They were there, living “in the moment” by grace. I have spent a lot of time with well known evangelical leaders over the years. Sadly, many respond very differently in these same circumstances. They have little or no real interest in people as people. I will say no more.

Stuart and Jill were deeply interested to talk to me about my journey, my wife, my children and my grandchildren. Jill gave me material for Anita to read and Stuart gave me his memoir. Before I left Stuart asked if he could pray for me. He then reached over to close the door of his office and said, “I had better close the door lest someone get the idea that I have begun to pray about things.” If you know Stuart you will smile at that line. (By the way, he is one of the most genuinely humorous ministers I have ever known. This is a great evidence of health and reverence in balance.)

I also observed two people, married for forty-nine years, truly loving each other. Stuart and Jill teased one another, spoke about their love for God and each other and then shared stories about family and friends. These stories spoke profoundly of their deep love in the most natural way. Jill even asked me questions about ministering to college students and whether she should still be doing it. (I encouraged her to do it all the more.)

Stuart and Jill are wonderful role models! I regret that I did not see them in this light more clearly when I was in their home for three days in 1972. I am glad that by God’s grace I can now see the qualities that make them such congruent and attractive people with a winsome lifestyle that gives me two great role models. I now have a great picture of what I hope I will like be over the next twenty-plus years, assuming God grants me that much time to live for his glory in this life. Who knows, maybe when I am Stuart’s age (78) I can actually be a role model for some sixty year old young guy like me.