John H Armstrong

Why Spending More Federal Money Is a Truly Bad Idea

I have said on several occasions that I am not a trained economist. I do not understand all the debates about theories and systems and frankly think most of our politicians do not either. I have also said that I think the most refreshing moment of honesty in the last presidential campaign was the most politically damaging. I refer to John McCain's admission that he did not understand the economy that well. The statement killed him but it was a rare moment of honesty almost never heard from a political candidate.

One thing I do understand. When revenue decreases spending should decrease. I took a 25% salary decrease twelve months ago. My wife and I have managed but only because we changed our spending habits rather dramatically. It has been a challenge but we've managed on a lot less. We've done less of those things that we enjoy and more careful accounting for every dime we receive and spend. It just makes sense. Everyone, including non-economists, can figure this out, or at least should be able to figure it out.

The problem is that the federal government, namely the president and Congress, cannot figure this one out. A report from the treasury reveals what we all knew was coming. This recession is starving the government of tax revenue. The numbers are stark. Tax receipts are on pace to drop 18% this year, the biggest single year decline since the Great Depression. At the same time the federal deficit will rise to $1.8 trillion.

Here are some more bleak numbers. Individual income tax receipts are down 22% and corporate income taxes are down 57%. Social Security is in trouble too. Receipts will drop for only the second time since 1940 and Medicare taxes are on pace to drop for only the third time ever. The last time the numbers were this bleak was in 1932, right in the middle of the Great Depression.

Our tax system is woefully inadequate to support the promises our federal government has already made. But at the same time the president and Congress are spending new money as if it grows on proverbial trees. The solution they offer, so far, is to print more money, which only makes matters worse.

I am not an apocalypse soon guy but a financial meltdown is almost sure to come if we keep this up. I understand the desire of Congress to reward various constituencies but when will they consider the next generation. My generation ("the boomers") now lines up asking for the biggest pay-out in history and expects the next generation to foot the bill. Someone will pay the piper. It is inevitable. It seems few politicians understand and very few people care.

Barth: On Understanding the Tragedy of the Divided Churches

Karl Barth was one of the greatest Christian thinkers in the twentieth century. Some think that his multi-volume Church Dogmatics is the most vigorous re-statement of essential Christianity produced in the last century. I remember when I first began to read it. It took me awhile to appreciate Barth because I had been told so many things about him by fundamentalists who thought that he was an enemy of the faith. When I began to read his work I was stunned at the care with which Barth handled the Bible. His thought was saturated with Scripture. Barth had a lot to say about the church but one of the finest statements I have read captures my attention whenever I read it. Consider Barth's thoughts:

There is no escape-hatch from the visible to the invisible church . . .  Nor should we try to explain the multiplicity of churches as something willed by God, the normal unfolding of the grace given to mankind in Jesus Christ. . . . To do so, however attractive it might seem would be to construct a philosophy of history or society, nor a theology. In other words, to solve the question of Church unity, we would be constructing our own ideas instead of listening to the question as it is put by Christ and hearing Christ’s own answer. . . . If we listen to Christ, we do not live above the difference that divide the churches but in them. [Which leaves us with only one painful alternative:] We should not try to explain the multiplicity of churches at all. We should treat all of it the way we would treat our own sin and those of theirs: as sin. We should see it as part of our guilt. [We] can only be shocked by these divisions and pray for their elimination.” [emboldening mine].

Die Kirche und die Kirchen (1935); cited by Hans Urs von Balthasaar in The Theology of Karl Barth (San Francisco, California: Ignatius Press, 1992, 4).

William Graham Sumner on Economics

William Graham Sumner (1840-1910) was an American academic and a professor at Yale. He was born in Paterson, New Jersey, and graduated from Yale College in 1863. He was appointed to the newly created Chair of Political and Social Science at Yale and made his name as a sociologist. His major accomplishments were developing the concepts of diffusion, folkways, and ethnocentrism. Sumner argued that government-mandated reforms were generally useless. He was a staunch advocate of laissez-faire economics and was active in the intellectual promotion of free-trade classical liberalism. One of his most brilliant quotes is well worth thinking about at the present time:

The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man.

The Forgotten Man became the title of Amity Shlaes controversial treatment of the New Deal and the Great Depression. It is a marvelous book that deserves more serious readership among non-academics who want to understand why the New Deal did not actually turn the economy around as commonly believed. If the New Deal did not actually accomplish what many tell us it accomplished why should we dig ourselves more deeply into the same hole in the present time?

A Great Blog Site for Conservative Economic Thought

My good friend David Bahnsen is one of the finest conservative thinkers I know. He has a rigorous mind, is a keen observer of trends and developments in the market and understands monetary policy. He also stays on top of global trends. I do not always agree with David but then I disagree with everyone at some point. If a guy only writes what I agree with I find him boring and thus not worth my time. David is never boring, never. He has a new Web site that I urge you to check out.

http://www.davidbahnsen.com/

David is presently reading and reviewing the major books published about the 2008 economic meltdown. Our mutual friend Andrew Sandlin has said of David's writing: "His hard-hitting articles unceremoniously peel back the thin, fuzzy veneer of protecting much of today's lame mainstream economic opinion." I concur.

A good example of David's thought can be found in a recent article titled, "What Kind of Conservative Are You?" Even if you disagree you too will be challenged.

David is a senior vice president at Morgan Stanley and writes a regular column on economics and business for both World magazine and Red County online magazine. He also served on the board of ACT 3 from 2007-2009.

Reformed Christianity and the Christian Church, Part Four

I began this series of posts on Monday by quoting a portion of a letter that a conservative Reformed minister wrote to a friend who had recently joined the Orthodox Church. In that letter this minister told his friend that he had left the Christian faith by becoming Orthodox. I said this response was ludicrous and harmful to both Christians and the well-being of the church. I then turned to the Reformed tradition to show how this type of thinking has impacted churches and denominations and why this approach is not consistent with the better parts of the Reformed tradition. I have particularly looked at John Calvin’s thoughts about unity since he is universally agreed to be the first great theologian of the Reformed faith.

In 1552 John Calvin wrote to Thomas Cranmer in England. Cranmer had invited Calvin, Melanchthon, Bullinger and others to a meeting at Lambeth Palace for the purpose of writing a creed that would be suitable to all the Reformed Churches. Cranmer’s plan failed because of the death of Edward VI and his own martyrdom under the reign of Mary. But Calvin’s response to Cranmer’s offer is powerfully moving and supportive of what I have been saying. Calvin wrote:

I wish indeed it could be brought about that men of learning and authority from the different churches might meet somewhere and, after thoroughly discussing the different articles of faith, should, by a unanimous decision, hand down to posterity some certain rule of faith . . . . As to myself, if I should be thought of any use, I would not, if need be, object to cross ten seas for such a purpose. If the assisting of England were alone concerned, that would be motive enough for me. Much more, therefore, am I of opinion that I ought to grudge no labor or trouble, seeing that the object in view is an agreement among the learned, to be drawn up by the weight of their authority according to Scripture, in order to unite widely severed churches.

It is no surprise that a Calvin scholar like A. Basil Mitchell observed, “Calvin was mastered by the vision of a world-wide church one in Christ, and he regarded it as one of the great ends of his earthly mission to promote its realization.” This vision was shared by a number of sixteenth century Reformers. It was also shared by some Catholics but their voices were eventually not heard above the din of polemics and fierce loyalty to their own church form. It would thus take centuries for this voice to be heard again. By the early twentieth century the concerns of John Calvin were being raised again and some began to listen.

The confessions of the Reformed churches also underscore this truth and the actual spirit behind it. Article 27 of the Belgic Confession says: “We believe and profess one unique catholic or universal Church, which is a holy gathering of true believers in Christ . .. . This holy church, moreover, is not confined, bound or limited to a certain place or to certain persons, but is spread and scattered over the whole world; and yet is joined and united with heart and will in one and the same Spirit and power.”

The minister who wrote the letter to his Orthodox friend affirms a commitment to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). I often wonder if such conservative Presbyterians have actually read the words of their own confession. In the WCF there is a reference to the communion of saints. There is a significant phrase there that is all too easily missed: “Which communion, as God offereth opportunity, is to be extended unto all those who in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus (XX.VI.2). This statement prompted the late John Mackay to say, “Could there be a more decisive testimony to what it means, in a practical sense, to belong to the Holy Catholic Church or a more articulate clarion call to inter-communion?”

It is very obvious, if you study Reformed Christianity carefully, that this tradition had much more to say about the catholic church, and thus about unity and ecumenism, than many advocates of the tradition now seem to believe. The writers of the Reformed confessions, and many of the best advocates of this theology, knew that to be truly Reformed meant that we must always be catholic and evangelical. This is the modern reformation that we need, not the one advocated by modern Reformed polemicists who continually attack other Christians and their church communions.

Reformed Christianity and the Christian Church, Part Three

I began this series of posts by sharing a portion of a letter written by a conservative Reformed minister who told a friend that he had left the Christian faith by joining the Orthodox Church. I believe that this response is not only preposterous but it is fostered by the sin of pride and reflects a divisive spirit that is condemned by the Scripture itself.

I noted that John Calvin distinguishes between essential and non-essential matters of faith. This distinction has been made by teachers and theologians since the early church. Calvin is simply following the long tradition of the faith in making such a point. He says, “A difference of opinion should in nowise be the basis of schism among Christians.” He says, in The Institutes (IV.1.12) that the characteristic core doctrines that are essential are these: “God is one; Christ is God and the Son of God; our salvation rests on God’s mercy and the like.” He adds, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, “[The one fundamental doctrine] which it is forbidden to overthrow, is that we might learn Christ. For Christ is the one and only foundation of the Church.” He is saying that the one final test of a person, or of a church, is that its doctrine must be right concerning Christ. (This, for example, is why all Christians believe the Jehovah Witness movement is not a true church.) Calvin, like Catholic and Orthodox Christians before him, believes everything hinges on this question: “What do you think of Christ?” (Matthew 22:42).

Calvin worked hard to preserve unity in the church. He was conciliatory towards Luther (whom he never actually met) and his followers. The model of his charity can be seen in how he treated Melanchthon, Luther’s principal theologian. Melanchthon was notoriously unstable and held views that Calvin strongly and openly opposed. Within Switzerland Calvin worked with disparate Protestant factions to seek unity as well. In 1549 a union was reached.

Calvin’s correspondence reveals an even deeper concern for true unity. In a letter to Bullinger (Zwingli’s successor and the leader of the German-Swiss Reformed Churches) he says:

What, my dear Bullinger, should more concern us in writing at this time, than to keep up and strengthen brotherly friendship between us by all possible means? We see how much it concerns not our church alone but all Christianity that all to whom the Lord has entrusted any charge in his church should agree in true concord. . . . We must therefore purposefully and carefully cherish association and friendship with all true ministers of Christ . . . in order that the churches to which we minister the Word of God may faithfully agree together. As for me, as far as in me lies, I will always labor to this end.

But there is a rather amazing part of Calvin’s story that I had never heard from those conservative Calvinists who remain steadfastly committed to schism. Following the Council of Trent, which revitalized Roman Catholicism in many excellent ways, Calvin was concerned that the Reformed cause might be lost. In 1557 he tried to persuade Melanchthon to arrange a conference in Germany on behalf of peace and union. In 1560 he made further attempts to renew this project. He proposed an assembly that would renew the union project by “a free and universal council to put an end to the divisions of Christendom.” The very next year, in 1561, he even gave consent to hold a gathering at Poissy which would have included Roman Catholics. He would have attended himself had not his friends prevented it. Adds John Hesselink, “This is all the more remarkable in that his frail body was being wracked by ever more frequent bouts of the painful illness which was to bring him to his death only three years later.”

Many modern conservative Calvinists prefer polemics against other Christians to praying and working for unity. One reason for this stance is that they really do not think other Christians are real Christians. They believe, in other words, what the Reformed minister believes who wrote to his friend and told him he had left the Christian faith by becoming Orthodox. What a sad departure from the true Reformed view of the church.

Reformed Christianity and the Christian Church, Part Two

A charge often leveled at Reformed Christianity is that it is inherently schismatic and fiercely anti-ecumenical. This is simply not true. A superficial reading of recent Reformed history may seem to support this idea but the facts are far more interesting. A proper understanding of the term "Reformed" calls for a much deeper understanding of this term than that employed by modern Calvinists who define their use of this term by a TULIP or some similar form of reductionism.

The Reformed Church in the Netherlands, as well as the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, both experienced serious dissensions that led to formal schism in the nineteenth century. In fact the Church of Scotland had already experienced two divisions in the eighteenth century. Some of these splits led to a wave of new immigration to America. These American churches were later plagued by further splits. But this is not the whole story. There have been reunions as well. Sadly, this part of the story is much less talked about.

A primary reason for these Reformed splits is quite easy to discover—Reformed Christians generally take doctrine more seriously than many other Christians. What looks like a minor theological issue to some Christians is a serious concern for many Reformed Christians. Yet it would be wrong to assume this history is only true of the Reformed. Lutherans and Baptists have had their own share of divisions, as have many other groups.

In spite of this heritage some of the strongest proponents of unity and catholicity have been Presbyterian and Reformed Christians. John Calvin, contrary to the misunderstanding that many have of his writing, was a strong advocate of unity. And in the twentieth century ecumenical movement it was Reformed Christians who often became strong leaders in calling for unity. Many worked tirelessly for catholicity.

My conclusion here is shared by many historians and theologians. Reformed Christianity has a classical commitment to the church catholic and thus takes the injunction to pursue unity very seriously. This is the mainstream witness of the movement. At the same time there has been a sectarian strand of Reformed Christianity that has often overshadowed the better nature of this movement. This strand glories in schism and in a type of elitism that sees Reformed Christianity as true Christianity. It sees Reformed Christianity as exclusionary of other expressions of the Christian faith. This sectarian strand is what lies behind the quotation I gave yesterday from the words of a Reformed leader to a friend of his who joined the Orthodox Church. In his response he makes it clear that his friend has left the Christian faith altogether. You should ask: "What makes a person say something like this in the face of the obvious fact that Orthodox Christianity affirms everything essential to orthodox Christian faith?"

Do not misunderstand my view. There are legitimate reasons for being concerned about union and unity. Purity of doctrine is a valid concern. So is the fear of certain types of bureaucracy that will cripple the church in missional faithfulness to Christ. Opposition to some unions is not necessarily wrong.

John Calvin is very helpful at this point. He was no “ecumaniac,” ready to rush into union at any price. Calvin wrote, in his commentary on John’s Gospel: “Schism is the worst and most harmful evil in the Church of God.” Yet he adds, “It is those who will not be obedient to the truth of God who tear the church by schism.” Dr. I. John Hesselink, a first-rate Calvin scholar, says that there are three criteria for true unity in Calvin’s thought: (1) Obedience to the truth; (2) Genuine godliness or piety; and, (3) The unity of faith. But having said this there is still the very practical problem of how we determine what is essential and nonessential regarding truth. The classic Protestant definition of a true church is one in which the Word of God is faithfully proclaimed and the sacraments are properly administered. But this still leaves a wide open door to question what is “true” and what is not. Says Hesselink, “Everything hinges on how one defines truth and purity.”

Interestingly Calvin warns against overscrupulousness in regard to doctrinal and ethical standards. A church, he says in The Institutes (IV.1.12) may “swarm with many faults.” I think he is spot on. The church in Corinth demonstrates his point. Here we have a congregation that abused the Lord’s Supper, failed to practice moral discipline (even tolerating serious sexual sin), divided over various leaders and their gifts and then missed the centrality of the bodily resurrection. Can you think of a more incriminating list of errors? Yet, Paul still addresses this flock as a true church.

It seems apparent that Paul believed that if the basic teaching of the apostles concerning God and Jesus Christ were sound then a true church exists. Perfectionism is, in this instance, a grievous sin. Christians who continually insist on dividing the church often commit serious sin in the process. Calvin adds, “It is a dangerous temptation to think there is not church where perfect purity is lacking. Anyone who is obsessed by that idea must cut himself off from everybody else, and appear to himself to be the only saint in the world, or he must set up a sect of his own along with other hypocrites” (Commentary on 1 Corinthians, 1:2).

The question, it seems to me, is thus clear: How much is necessary to believe in order to avoid heresy on the one hand and perfectionism on the other? I will address this tomorrow.

N. T. Wright on Blogging

Besides being one of the most important New Testament scholars of our generation N.T. Wright is also one of shrewdest observers of modern technology that I know. I agree completely with his comments on blogging. These comments are available on a short video clip from a longer interview that will appear in a few weeks. Check out what he says and leave a comment if you like. I found this immensely helpful. The fact is I spend more time with people than in writing blogs, far more. I find this necessary to keep my feet planted on terra firma and my mind and spirit linked with the lives of real people. I fear that way too many pastors are blogging much too much. This tendency is not healthy for the church. I am not a pastor and one reason I am not is because I do not believe I could really pastor a church and do the writing and other ministry I am committed to by design.

This is the best three minute commentary you will likely see on this subject so check out Bishop Wright's comments and see for yourself: http://bit.ly/mhntX

Why I Write

Thanks to all of you who wrote in response to my blog (last week) about my writing these blogs. I go through these "seasons" when I wonder if this is truly worth my time and yours. I usually recover to write again. I wish I could just sit down with every person who wants to talk to me and listen and respond. Some of you actually do this with me and I love it. At the least I wish I could answer every respondent personally. I am, unfortunately, a perfectionist. I am also a people person. This combination has landed me in a great deal of personal trouble over the years. I want to listen but I can also take comments too personally when they were not meant in that way at all.

I write a lot about "conservative Reformed" opinions and responses for one primary reason: I have lived in this world most of my adult life and have some understanding of its ministries, leaders, authors, etc. Many of my very best friends teach and minister in this context. Some of those who most dislike my input are also in this world. This is not surprising at all if you know how these things work. The same is true in the charismatic world or the emergent world.

Earlier today I posted some statements on my Twitter site from the late American historian Daniel Boorstin. (If you use Twitter please sign up if you would like to follow me.) I am a huge fan of Daniel J. Boorstin. This reminded me of a great Boorstin quote about writing. He said, "I write to discover what I think. After all, the bars aren't open that early."

What a great line. I do not look for bars but I know the feeling. I find writing a better outlet than the alternatives. I tend to think out loud so I can learn when I write. I also tend to write because it forces me to put my ideas down in words and then listen to what other say about my ideas. Your comments, pro or con, are not offensive to me personally. If someone is rude I simply do not post the comment. If someone persists in making a point that has been overdone then I will choose not to post them after these folks have had the floor for some period of time. Otherwise, I learn from my friends and from my critics. What amazes me, quite truthfully, is that so many good folks actually read this blog. I hope I can make it worth your time because your time is very valuable. I only read what inspires me, what teaches me, or both. Knowing this to be the case I remain grateful to you my readers.

Reformed Christianity and the Christian Church, Part One

There is a deep ambivalence in Presbyterian and Reformed history with regard to the unity of the church. In the sixteenth century there was a strong desire for unity, one that was stretched by the division with Rome and then impacted by division with other Protestants, especially with Lutherans. (Sadly, all of the magisterial Reform movements rejected the hated Anabaptists, thus joining with the Catholics in their assault on these simple believers.) In the twentieth century Reformed churches and ministers became some of the most prominent leaders in the rise of the modern ecumenical movement. But you would not know this if you listened to many of the popular Reformed teachers of our day.

This fact is indeed clear: many conservative Presbyterian and Reformed Christians are known for some of the fiercest doctrinal debates imaginable. Numerous splits between these churches have been the sad result of several hundred years of theological warfare. In America these fires have been stoked by deep fears within a number of denominations and groups. The Internet provides a marvelous means for the vigorous pursuit of more schism. People who engage in this kind of polemical debate have virtually no desire to pursue unity with anyone who does not agree with their “essentials.” (The list of “essentials” varies from person to person and from place to place!)

I have routinely argued that a strong desire for unity is the best expression of true Reformed Christianity. The regular reader of these posts can see that there are strong opponents of this view, some of whom routinely raise objections to my posts. I remain Reformed but I seek to follow a way of charity and unity with other Christians who are anything but Reformed in their understanding of a number of significant doctrinal debates.

Recently a friend answered an email from a man who wrote him to say that he had left the Reformed Protestant faith for the Orthodox Church. What made this correspondence interesting to me was that I have also had more than a few friends join the Orthodox Church. One of my dearest friends, and the past chairman of our ACT 3 board, left the evangelical Protestant ministry to become an Orthodox priest. This experience led me to take an immediate interest in this particular correspondence. My friend answered this man by telling him why he regretted his decision to become Orthodox. But he also indicated that he would remain a friend and brother in Christ. The letter of my friend was then forwarded to another Reformed leader. This second correspondent is a strong advocate for the polemical stance of much conservative Reformed Christianity in America. Without divulging the name of this person I share a part of his response to allow you to see precisely what I am talking about when I write various posts on this subject. I do not make this stuff up. This letter will demonstrate my point abundantly. Here is the unnamed Reformed leader’s response to the conversion of his friend to Orthodoxy:

Because I have so enjoyed our friendship, this news is hard for me. As you already know, my views on Rome and Orthodoxy are decidedly less sanguine than [those of your other Reformed respondent]. In my judgment you are leaving behind the Christian faith, and for that I mourn. I'm not angry, and I'm not offended, and I'm not hurt. I'm just sad. It is a sadness I have been through far too many times, including with respect to sheep that were at one time actually under my care. I don't need to fuss and fume, and you can rest assured of two truths. First, I will pray that God would open your eyes to the truth on these matters. Second, if He should be so pleased, I will rejoice with the angels in heaven.

There you have it. This man’s response is to tell his friend that he is “leaving behind the Christian faith.” This is utterly and completely preposterous. I will explain my response more fully tomorrow but it must be said now that everyone who confesses “Jesus is Lord” (1 Corinthians 12:3) is my brother.

Yes, I am quite aware that there are many who confess Christ who are not truly his disciples. Our Lord repeatedly warned his followers to make sure that they really knew him. I am also quite prepared to say that you do not know who his true disciples are since “the Lord knows those who are his.” A little more humility here would go a long way. When you are convinced that you possess the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then you are prepared to tell people who become Catholic, or Orthodox, or anything else besides your version of the faith, that they “are leaving behind the Christian faith.” This is unmitigated tragedy. Who made you the judge of your brother or sister?