Sarah Palin Called it Right!

Regardless of what you may think of the propriety of Sarah Palin serving at a high level of government with a young infant - take a look at how she uncannily predicted the current housing bubble and the subsequent Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae crisis and bail-out - five years ago! We need people who truly understand the economy in high office. Look at how prescient she was in this appearance before Congress in 2003, while she was still only the chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. I would encourage you to read all of this, and ask yourself if this woman sounds like the "wack job" the mainstream media has made her out to be? Does this woman have the qualifications to be President? Does she understand economics, or what?

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on the Treasury Department's views regarding government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). I would also like to thank Secretaries Snow and Martinez for taking time out of their busy schedules to appear before the committee.

I hope this committee spends some time examining the special privileges provided to GSEs by the federal government. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received $13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone. Today, I will introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act, which removes government subsidies from the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the National Home Loan Bank Board.

One of the major government privileges granted to GSEs is a line of credit with the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a huge unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.

The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase GSE debt. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.

The connection between the GSEs and the government helps isolate the GSE management from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the recent reports of mismanagement occurring at Fannie and Freddie. After all, if Fannie and Freddie were not underwritten by the federal government, investors would demand Fannie and Freddie provide assurance that they follow accepted management and accounting practices.

Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.

Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government's interference in the housing market, the government's policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.

Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary, but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.

No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that government subsidies provided to GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to once again thank the Financial Services Committee for holding this hearing. I would also like to thank Secretaries Snow and Martinez for their presence here today. I hope today's hearing sheds light on how special privileges granted to GSEs distort the housing market and endanger American taxpayers. Congress should act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors who were misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope this committee will soon stand up for American taxpayers and investors by acting on my Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.

Wasn't that unbelievable? Of course it was. But Sarah Palin didn't say this. If you want to know who did, click here.

I thought I'd try the little experiment that Pizza Hut and Folgers have done by a little swap-out, seeing what people really think when they don't know the actual source. Unfortunately, politics has become a cult of personality, and ideas are judged by who said them rather than on their merits alone - and these days, unless something political has the name "Sarah Palin" on it, it's hard to get most conservatives to read anything longer than a fortune cookie.

The current presidential candidates seem to be clueless about the housing bubble and the bailouts. Think about this: right now, more than half of the extant mortgages in the United States are held by the federal government. This amounts to the largest nationalization in history. AIG has also gotten its bailout as well - and more are on the way. Meanwhile, the politicians are talking about "economic stimulus" (i.e. bread and circuses) - as though more consumer spending can fix the problem. We are the largest debtor nation in the world - and we are floating our current debt (held largely by China) by printing currency out of thin air. If (and when) China and other foreign nations who don't especially like us stop floating us loans, we will have no choice but to submit to hyperinflation.

McCain blames "greed" and promises "hearings" to "clean up Wall Street" (whatever that means). Obama blames Bush (yawn). The RNC Chair blames the "Pelosi-Obama Congress" (the what?). The Democrats say there aren't enough regulations. The Republicans say there are too many regulations. Rush blames the "drive-bys" and the "liberals" and Air America blames, oh, are they even still around? Of course, left-wing leaders blame the free market. Meanwhile, the real issue is not even being discussed.

Are the politicians really that stupid, or do they just think we all are?

Here is an analogy: America is like a young guy that has a pretty good job. He has good credit, and so has lots of luxuries. But he is financially overextended. He has to have some help paying his Visa. In order to cover the minimum payment, he borrows a lot of money from Dad every month. The shortfall is made up by using MasterCard to pay Visa. This seems to be working, so no worries. He has a Plasma TV, a sweet ride, and plenty of beer. He's also popular, because he has a lot of powerful "friends" who come to him to borrow money - and he is able to help them out not only with cash, but by co-signing their loans. But he has a problem that is largely unseen - as he is getting further and further into debt. And when the dreaded day comes that Dad says: "No more!" - he will then have to pay his entire Visa bill with his MasterCard. Both Visa and MasterCard will then be racking up even more debt. Furthermore, the friends he has been floating with low-interest loans all this time will have turned out to be deadbeats themselves, and now their creditors will be calling about those co-signed loans. Eventually, his income will only be able to pay the interest on all of his commitments, and the principal will continue to soar. He takes a look at that brand new color laser printer (which he bought on credit, of course), and realizes that the only way out of the mess is to print trillions of dollars of bogus money...

This can't go on forever, can it?

Meanwhile, the GOP is virtually promising wars in Iran and Russia (which requires a lot of expensive purchases of things that, as my dad who worked in the defense industry used to say: "puts a lot of bread on the table"). The Republicans are also advocating more foreign bases and an even larger military budget (referred to in an Orwellian way as "national security"). Not to be outdone, the Democrats are promising universal health care and cradle to grave security, free educations for all, and any other thing that people can be talked into wanting for nothing. The Baby Boomers are beginning to retire, and there are not enough workers (thanks partially to the Baby Boomer culture of contraception) to prop up the Social Security and Medicare pyramid (since there is no Social Security "trust fund" - the money has all been spent already on luxuries we can't afford). Both parties are proposing a vastly expanded federal government - all paid for by "somebody else" (the Democrats say "The Rich" and the Republicans say "Growth in the Economy").

The reality is we will all pay through the inflation of a bloated cash supply, through a massive Wall Street and Real Estate crash, and through bankruptcy.

I honestly respect that Sarah Palin can hunt a moose and field dress it. I could never do such a thing. I honestly respect John McCain's years of service to his country that included being a POW. But none of these things an economist makes. I'm sure Joe Biden and Barack Obama have done impressive things in their lives - serving in the U.S. Senate is no small accomplishment - and they are probably really bright individuals. But nobody is addressing the heart of our economic problem: bloating debt being covered up by kited fiat currency.

Five years ago (when he was in his 7th term in Congress, as Palin was beginning to serve as the chairman of an obscure political committee), Congressman Paul predicted exactly what is happening today. He has been consistently warning us (by warning our public representatives) for his entire tenure in Congress. But the mainstream media and their cohorts in the mainstream political parties wanted us all to believe he was some kind of a nutjob.

Well, it sure doesn't sound like that's the case now, does it?

The electorate got what they wanted. Ron Paul is not a presidential candidate. We now get to choose between McCain and Obama. But at least Congress has one person who understands how we got where we are, and what we must do to get out of it. If you were impressed with the above quotation when you thought it was Sarah Palin who said it, you might want to read the real author's new book The Revolution: A Manifesto (available at Amazon in hardcover for $12.60, or as an audio book on CD for $16.49). Formerly number one on the bestseller list (this past May), it's currently number ten on the NY Times bestseller list - just one notch behind John McCain's book. Not a bad place to be for a guy who was clobbered in the elections and portrayed as some kind of a loony fringe candidate.

Now, if we can just get McCain, Palin, Obama, Biden and Paul's colleagues in the United States Congress to read it - maybe we'd be getting somewhere. Meanwhile, I recommend that every American read it, pay down his own debts, be as self-sufficient as possible, and start saving money in a truly conservative way. Quit giving your politicians carte blanche to bail out their friends with taxpayer money. Start demanding real conservative fiscal accountability by a return to sound money and an end to the mischief of paper currency and a central bank - whether or not "our" party or "our" guy or gal is in power.

A Day in the Life

This is one of those throwaway blog posts of no depth and no real thought, no theology, no politics, nothing of eternal ramifications - just an observation on a pop song.

So, you're still reading? Great. What the heck...

In one of my relatively rare rides in the auto yesterday, I tuned on the radio just to hear the beginning of the Beatles's "A Day in the Life" from their 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. I had not heard the song in many years, though I must have heard it a thousand times in my high school/college age immersion in Album Oriented Rock (as I was introduced to that genre of rock and roll by the late great Clemens J. Caraboolad, the Harley-riding theologian, geometry teacher, heavy-metal guru, bon vivant, and philosopher-coach at Walsh Jesuit High School, presiding over Room 110, may he rest in peace).

So, I cranked up the volume as far as a Toyota Sienna minivan's sound system can go, and listened to the entire song - at least until the DJ interrupted the extremely long final (42 seconds) E-Major chord with the usual drivel.

Wow.

I really enjoyed the tune. It is a genuinely interesting piece of music with haunting orchestration thanks to producer/composer George Martin (who is now 82 years old). What a bold, gutsy move this was to create this really unique piece of music and release it commercially on a pop album forty-one years ago - while the pop music on the radio was still pretty inane and "corporate" for the most part at that time. I imagine the song (and the album) must have created quite a stir at the time. I think it is safe to say both had a great deal of influence on younger generations of musicians.

It's not Bach, by any means, but interesting, entrancing to listen to, and still fresh in a pop-music rock-and-roll kind of way four decades later.

Congress to Direct Fed to Print Mo' Money!

Problem: Debt, overly loose credit, too much spending. Solution: Spend more. Implementation: Get the Fed to loan more money into existence, to further extend credit to keep spending levels up (economic stimulus). Side benefits: Inflation.

Rinse. Repeat.

Thanks federal government! Read more here.

PS: Oh, goodness. The media talking heads are saying that we're not spending enough money! Check it out.

The Dangers of a Living Document

There is a tendency among both liberals and conservatives to view the Constitution as a "living document" - by permitting the Supreme Court (and the federal courts in general) to "interpret" the text. But as long as the president is one of "us" (whether liberal or conservative), this is okay - as we will get the goodies from government we want - whether federal oversight to abolish state abortion prohibitions, or federal oversight to mandate the states to permit it. Of course, that's just one issue (albeit a life and death issue) among many.

The founders of the United States rejected the "living document" theory, as well as the supreme central government (the Crown) in giving us a limited republic comprised of federated states with a written general constitution. By contrast, the British Constitution has always been unwritten. It is the ultimate "living document" that amounts to evolving common law as interpreted by judges. The people, though having representation in Parliament, have little power over their own constitutional law.

The American federal government as we understand it today has fallen back to a certain extent on the "unwritten" British model - as the Constitution is treated, at best, as a "guideline" or an obstacle to work around instead of as a chain to bind the government. Today's federal government treats the Constitution not as a curb, but as a motor. And they can only do this by clever, strained, and sometimes outright outrageous interpretation. The executive and legislative branches will not use their checks and balances against the judiciary. Why? Because they benefit from the arrangement.

They like it the way it is. And so do the major political parties, including whoever the opposition is at any given time. Because the opposing party knows that when they take their turn in power, they too will have the judiciary doing their bidding. Instead of protecting us from tyranny, both major parties are pushing their own "new and improved" tyranny of their own making. Instead of representing the people, they are representing the parties (as well as the lobbyists who ply them with money and threats) - all the while dividing the people, expanding the federal government, and distorting the original intent of the Constitution.

If you want to see where this leads, take a look at how the unwritten, living Constitution in Britain has been interpreted of late by its courts.

This is not a liberal/conservative issue, nor a Republican/Democrat issue. The Constitution protects all of us and is designed to prevent such mischief.

Slavery, Whoopi, McCain, and the Constitution

whoopi slavery
by dollarsandsense123

Sen. John McCain obviously walked into a hornet's nest by appearing on The View, which he knew would be a hostile environment. He also had to know that the Big Question was going to come up: abortion - that most sacrosanct of "rights" for the Left.

Whoopi Goldberg played the ultimate Race Card, triumphantly tossing down the Queen of Slavery as a trump while her fellow affluent girlfriends swore on their "white skin privilege" to protect her from the Bad Man.

Puh-Leeez!

John McCain played a very safe, but ultimately impotent, retort: "Good point. That's an excellent point. Thank you." Huh? He punted.

Of course, sometimes there is nothing to do but punt. The problem is that Sen. McCain missed a real teaching moment. All he had to do was inform Whoopi that the Constitution protects her from slavery - the Thirteenth Amendment. And when judges strictly interpret the Constitution without weaseling around looking for new interpretations of a "living document", the protections all Americans enjoy (the pre-born excepted, thanks to activist judges playing loose and fast with our Constitution, spurred on by pro-abortion politicians and a culture of death) - such as the protection against forced labor - we all win.

McCain should have pointed out to her that slavery was outlawed by amending the Constitution, which would have been the proper legal channel for those who wished to see the federal government have the power to either prohibit or require the states to make abortion legal (neither of which are powers delegated to the federal government).

Here is what John McCain should have answered:

"Excellent point, Whoopi. I want to address that, because I think it's important. Slavery was abolished not because a judge was able to impose his own opinion, but because the Constitution was amended to give Congress the power to abolish slavery. Would you want to place your freedom in the hands of a changing, politically appointed handful of judges based on their ever-changing interpretation, or would you rather have a black-and-white amendment explicitly spelled out and made crystal clear to everyone? Activist judges may get you what you want today, but they may well enslave you tomorrow. Can you imagine if the Supreme Court suddenly decided that the Thirteenth Amendment didn't mean what the plain language says it means? Can you imagine if they were to "find" a "new" right to enslave other people where the document says nothing of the sort? This is why I believe in a strict reading of the Constitution. It protects you from being a slave."

I can think of one of Sen. McCain's conservative colleagues in the Congress who would have given an answer along those lines. Instead, Sen. McCain surrendered the ground.

If he wins the election, let's hope he doesn't surrender the actual Constitution in the real world the way he squandered a golden opportunity to defend it on a TV show.

Sermon: Feast of the Holy Cross

14 September 2008 at Salem Lutheran Church, Gretna, LA

Text: 1 Cor 1:18-25

In the name of + Jesus. Amen.

In the year 312 A.D., a remarkable thing happened.

The Roman Empire, which officially put Jesus and thousands of His followers to death, turned on its heels. According to some ancient historians, the Emperor Constantine had a vision just before battle in which he saw a cross and the Greek words “Ἐν τούτῳ νίκα”, which means: “In this sign you will conquer.” Now, whether or not this part of the story is true, the next part certainly is: Constantine won the battle, legalized Christianity, and himself became a Christian.

Soon, the cross was seen everywhere – even in former pagan temples that were being converted into Christian churches. Christians practiced their faith in the open, and the Gospel was spread legally using the magnificent roads and the universal language of the Romans who once persecuted them for their faith – often by crucifying them.

Around this time, a dispute rose over the nature of the divinity of Jesus, and the Christians began to trace the sign of the cross the way we do today, over the head and chest, instead of the small sign on the forehead that was done in the days of Roman persecution.

The Christian faith symbolized by this cross triumphed over the mighty Roman Empire without firing a single shot. No-one could have predicted such an unlikely route to such an unlikely victory, a victory over the enemies of the cross, over the oppressors of those who followed in the footsteps of the crucified One, of those whom the Lord said would be bearers of their own crosses.

“In this sign, you will conquer.”

And that is indeed the story of the cross. In this sign our Lord conquered the devil. In this sign, we Christians conquer sin, death, and the grave. And it is in this sign, given at Baptism, that the forces of evil are exorcised and life is victorious over death.

The way of the cross is indeed an unlikely route to victory. For to the eyes, the cross is a symbol of death, defeat, submission, and disgrace. It is a shameful instrument of torture and capital punishment reserved for slaves and traitors. It is painful, gory, and horrific. The statesman Cicero said that the cross is not a topic civilized people should bring up in polite company.

If someone wanted to start a religion, the cross would be the last symbol anyone would want to represent it.

The fact that Christians wear crosses around their necks would seem strange to ancient Romans, as if we were to wear little electric chairs or hangman’s nooses as jewelry today. And that is exactly St. Paul’s point that we can only grasp by faith: “it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.”

The world doesn’t get us because the world doesn’t get the cross.

The world mocks Christianity as foolishness, and Christians as fools. We are either derided as unscientific backward morons or as self-righteous bigots and hypocrites. “For the message of the cross” says St. Paul, “is foolishness for those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

It pleases God to bring the haughty down and to exalt the humble. And as St. Paul asks the mocker of the cross and of the Christ: “Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” The world sees a condemned criminal dying and asks: “How can this truly be God?” The world sees bread and wine and asks “How can this be the true body and blood of Christ?” The world sees a redeemed sinner and asks: “How can this truly be a saint?”

And here is how it is, dear Christians, from the mouth of the Holy Spirit Himself, proclaimed by St. Paul, and confessed by the Church for two millennia: “We preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”

The holy cross is an instrument of torture that frees us from the torture of hell. The holy cross is the bringer of death that brings us out of death to life. The holy cross is the law’s punishment for sin that liberates us from sin and the law’s punishment. The holy cross was a failed attempt by Satan to decapitate the people of God, that became the means through which the Head of the Church crushed the head of the serpent.

“In this sign, you will conquer.” For we are more than conquerors because of the sacrifice of the crucified One, and through the preaching of the foolishness of the cross.

Indeed all those who are baptized into the death and resurrection of Christ, all the redeemed and reborn who eat the body and drink the blood of Christ crucified, all those who pray for deliverance and for help by the Lord’s cross and passion will certainly conquer in, with, and under that sign of the glorious battle of which we sing:

Faithful cross, true sign of triumph,
Be for all the noblest tree;
None in foliage, none in blossom,
None in fruit thine equal be;
Symbol of the world’s redemption,
For the weight that hung on thee.

Amen.

In the name of the Father and of the + Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Time Bomb Explodes, Nobody Notices

A great short essay by economist Dr. Robert Higgs entitled Ticking Time Bomb Explodes, Public Is Shocked.

Unfortunately, our great presidential dialogue leading up to the election in less than two months is all about vague references to "change," discussions about lipstick, accusations of not knowing how to send e-mails, and other inanities. Choosing a president is today not much different than selecting the next American Idol - as both sides in the election are being marketed as a cult of personality based on the ability to create a media "buzz."

Meanwhile, back in the real world outside the beltway and the media - has anyone bothered to notice the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Does this sound kind of important? Is anyone talking about the federal reserve's continued devaluation of the dollar? Doesn't this sound like something that we might want to be talking about at election time?

We are facing a complete financial meltdown in this country simply based on the laws of mathematics and economics - but talk radio, TV pundits, and political journalists are fixated on nonsense - and the politicians themselves are more interested in polls and talking points than addressing these dire matters.

A couple quotes from Higgs:

"The failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, setting in motion the biggest government bailout/takeover in U.S. history, brings a grim sense of fulfillment to competent economists. After all, what did people expect, that water would flow uphill forever? ... The trouble is, however, that now, even more than then, the American people have little interest in liberty. Instead, they want the impossible: home ownership for those who cannot afford homes, credit for those who are not creditworthy, old-age pensions for those who have not saved, health care for those who make no attempt to keep themselves healthy, and college educations for those who lack the wit to finish high school. Moreover, they want it now, and they want somebody else to pay for it.

If you think that Fannie and Freddie’s bust is a big deal, just wait until Medicare comes crashing down. Then, the wailing and gnashing of teeth will be truly unbearable. As that day rapidly approaches, however, you’ll notice that the politicians are doing utterly nothing to forestall it."

Welfare State Disconnect

A recent TV news report here in New Orleans featured a story of thousands of people waiting in line for hours on end to get food stamps. They had to evacuate for Hurricane Gustav (which is terribly expensive, to be sure!). The state had set up a couple of temporary distribution centers for people to apply for benefits because so many were asking for them.

The news station interviewed three people who were terribly angry at the clumsiness of the bureaucracy and the time they had to spend in line. Two of these folks who were utterly indignant had Blue Tooths stuck in their ears.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but if you can afford a Blue Tooth, you should not get food stamps - especially if you're standing in line for welfare, and most especially if you're being interviewed on TV. Isn't Blue Tooth kind of expensive? You have to buy the hardware, but also pay a monthly subscription - isn't that correct?

I'm reminded of the oft-reported situation after Hurricane Katrina in which an elderly lady was being put up at government expense in a furnished apartment - along with a 60 inch flat screen TV with brand new hardwood floors - and she was complaining that it was a "dump."

We in South Louisiana have been terribly embarrassed of late by the complaints and ingratitude of hurricane refugees who had to spend time in shelters - which I'm sure are no picnic. But an emergency shelter is not a 4-star resort. It means you get a roof, a cot, a portable toilet, and food and water. You get to survive. Frankly, a lot of military personnel live this way for months or years on end. Hurricane refugees may spend a week or two in such conditions (complaining of lack of soda drinks, showers, and TV). Living in a primitive situation like this for a few days is better than drowning in a flood, isn't it? And then you get to go home.

Besides, if you forgo a few luxuries that you really can't afford (like Blue Tooth, cable, cell phones, booze, smokes, tattoos, body piercings, expensive jewelry, etc.), you can sock away a few hundred bucks so that when the next hurricane comes, you can stay in a hotel instead of a shelter, and you can fall back on your savings and be self-sufficient instead of making the taxpayers treat you like a child and give you a handout.

Like almost everyone in South Louisiana, I accepted Red Cross and FEMA money after Hurricane Katrina - and I was grateful for it. Evacuation is expensive. We were all caught unawares that time - especially given the severity of the devastation. Our entire region was crippled after the storm. Our families had to spend weeks, in some cases, months away from home. We also benefited greatly from selfless volunteers sent by churches and charitable agencies who helped us rebuild our homes and our lives. And most of us learned valuable lessons as a result. We learned to put money away and to have a plan. If you live in New Orleans, you simply must have a few hundred bucks in cash stowed away at home before you spend a dime on luxuries.

The U.S. certainly owes our region decent levees (they were built to substandard levels which were covered up by the Army Corps of Engineers, and the federal government needs to take responsibility and fix their shoddy work - and besides, the state and local governments aren't allowed to fix the levees even if we wanted to - by law, all work on the levees must go through the Corps and be funded by the federal government). But the taxpayers (at any level of government) should not be expected to pay our citizens who irresponsibly spent their money over the last three years on electronic goodies, gas guzzling cars, and entertainment instead of saving for a "rainy day."

Of course, it goes without saying that a lot of people are genuinely poor and in need. This is not to disparage them. But those who have the means, but squander them, do not exactly make other people too eager to help anyone - including those who are in genuine need.

The Welfare State discourages people from taking responsibility and setting priorities. The Welfare State encourages able-bodied grown men and women to act as eternal adolescents or even to see themselves as helpless little children.

People need to relearn the concepts of thrift, self-denial, and delayed gratification - as well as the classic Boy Scout motto: "Always be prepared."

God bless Texas

Ike is predicted to become a Category 4 hurricane. Please keep the good people of the Lone Star State (who have been so generous in looking after Louisianians fleeing from storms) in your prayers!

Garbage in, garbage out

In my "former life," I was a computer programmer. In that line of work, there is (or at least there was) a universally known saying: "Garbage in, garbage out" - which, like most things, became acronymized by computer geeks as GIGO.

It makes a lot of sense in the world of computers. Because basically, a computer takes input, does something to that input, and then produces output. Hence, no matter how good the program is, if the input data is garbage, the output is also going to be garbage.

In our garbage-ridden world, the Lord gives His people gems - the Gospel, mighty words of grace uttered by the Word of Grace Himself through preachers who hold the high privilege of speaking the Word of God to the redeemed of God. In a way, pastors are like garbagemen/gemologists. They remove the trash of sin from the sinner, and replace the filth with the bejeweled beauty of the Gospel.

But what do some of these preachers do? They opt instead to pile on more garbage. There are a lot of preachers out there who think people need entertainment in their congregations, they need movies, they need a good show, they need stage lights, dancing girls, skits, bawdy humor, outlandish costumes, and other nonsense that overpowers the "still small voice" of the Word of God rather than serving as some "culturally relevant conduit" or whatever other mealymouthed psychobabble or sociological "emergent" argot they want to put on it.

I guess I could quote Barack Obama at this point about pigs and lipstick, but I think I'll stick with the GIGO metaphor instead.

These preachers are pushing garbage instead of proclaiming Christ crucified. Instead of removing the trash, they are doling out more. They are turning American Christianity into a rubbish-pile of Wall-E proportions. They are making the American religious scene little more than a fly-ridden smoldering landfill, heaped high with discarded trinkets, broken toys, and junk.

Of course, they are free to do what they want in their churches. It's a free country. If people want stripper poles and shots of Jack Daniels in their churches (and I believe they will eventually get those too), that's up to them. But the reason I feel compelled to comment on it is because there is a faction within our own church, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, including many in high places in our church hierarchy - who encourage this kind of garbage in our churches, garbage in our pulpits, and garbage at our altars.

They hold conferences and meetings that are celebrations of garbage. They tell us that we have to wallow in the trash in order to "grow." They tell us we need to trash our traditions, and trade them for trash.

Of course, one man's trash is another man's treasure - but not in the Christian Church. We believers in Christ should know a pile of garbage when we see it, and we should know, discern, and recognize the beautiful workings of the Holy Spirit by contrast.

You can get a show anywhere. You can buy cheap junk to add to your pile in any number of places. But you can only get the treasure of the Gospel in one place and from one supplier - the Christian Church. And, as a bonus, the treasure is entirely free.

So instead of taking this "garbage in" from outside, why don't we take the "garbage out" to the curb where it belongs?

Christology from the Mouths of Babes

Mrs. Hollywood and I took Lion Boy to a Gretna playground this afternoon. While we ate dinner, Leo played and romped with a passel of little children - one of which was a little girl who attends Salem Lutheran School. After a while, she ran over to me, smiled, and said: "Hey, I know you."

"You do?" I replied. "Who am I?"

Her answer: "Jesus!"

I laughed. "Not quite. I'm Pastor Beane." "Oh," she answered, and ran off to resume her play.

Little children instinctively seem to understand that the pastor, the preacher, the one who is always talking about Jesus, the one who wears churchly vestments, stands in the front of the church, and makes the sign of the cross - is somehow inextricably linked to Jesus.

Maybe this is why our Lord says we must become as little children to inherit the Kingdom. When we get older, many of us no longer see a man in persona Christi, but rather a hireling, a functionary, a guy with a job. We begin to see the minister not for who he is and for Whom he acts (ontologically), but rather for what he does (functionally) - and then we are quick to posit that anyone else can do the same job. We begin to see ordination as nothing more than a quaint little ceremony and the ministry as merely a function that can be carried out by vicars, "lay ministers," DCEs, and lay elders. After all, lots of people are "ministers" who have a "divine call" - not just "ministers of religion - ordained" (as the bureaucrats would say).

This is how it is that we have dirty little secrets in the LCMS, horrific things like: forcing vicars to violate their consciences by bullying them into pre-ordinational "consecration" with no authority to do so, and like having the laity lay hands on elders and send them off to celebrate the Mass - for that authority comes from Christ and is given, according to the Lutheran confessions, "rite vocatus" (through the "call according to the rite" (of ordination)) - which follows a period of pastoral training, formation, and public oaths to doctrinal fidelity.

The laity have a holy vocation, no less holy than the clergy. But only the clergy have the vocation to preach and administer sacraments. We Lutherans never proposed a change to that article of faith of the church catholic (the only question under debate in article 14 of the Augsburg Confession boiled down to the discussion about whether the minister of ordination had to be a bishop, or whether priests likewise had the authority to ordain - the question of lay people ordaining and/or officiating at sacraments was never on the table).

And certainly all Christians are called upon to be "little Christs" - in the words of Luther. All Christians have the priestly vocation to pray and to offer their lives as living sacrifices to the Lord, to be witnesses of the faith. Christians are called to confess to each other, and lead a life of forgiveness. But as this little girl was confessing in her own way, pastors, men who are rite vocatus, called through the process of ritual ordination, speak publically, authoritatively, and vocationally in their own priestly way on behalf of, and by authority of, Jesus.

"So Jesus said to them again, 'Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.' And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained'" (John 20:21-23).

It's too bad when Christians "grow up" and start "doing their own thing" according to their own reasoning apart from the collective testimony and wisdom of their ancestors in the faith - not to mention the Word of God.

Maybe if more of our leadership spent more time in the real world with little children and less time reading the latest trendy books written by business gurus and fad church poobahs, they too would get it.

Sermon: Trinity 16

7 September 2008 at Salem Lutheran Church, Gretna, LA

Text: Luke 7:11-17 (1 Kings 17:17-24, Eph 3:13-21)

In the name of + Jesus. Amen.

The Christian faith is a matter of life and death.

Christianity is not a hobby, not something to do on Sunday as part of our social life, not something to make us feel better about ourselves and our lives, not a means to teach our children morals, not a political agenda, and not just another one of those choices we make in life based on what teachings we like best or what style of worship suits our fancy.

The Christian faith is a matter of life and death.

For we were created by our God to live, to live abundantly, and to live forever. We brought death upon ourselves by our disobedience, by our selfishness, by our sin. And as St. Paul preaches: “The wages of sin are death.”

So what does God do? He rescues us. He doesn’t give us a pill – though He does give us a sort of “immortality medicine”. He doesn’t pretend our sins don’t exist – though He does discharge them by visiting death upon Jesus, the Crucified One. He doesn’t turn Himself into a liar by simply making us immortal – though He does make us “more than conquerors” over the death we deserve, of the death we will suffer, of the death His Son defeated by dying and rising.

Ever since the fall in Eden, mankind has been suffering death and suffering because of death. This great struggle between the forces of death and life, between darkness and light, between hell and heaven has been engaged since Satan first transgressed the Law of God and convinced man to do the same. And yet, in His mercy, the Lord has been beating back sin, Satan, and death ever since.

The victory of life over death is a powerful theme in Scripture. In our Gospel, St. Luke recounts our Lord Jesus Christ Himself raising a widow’s son who was being carried to his tomb in an open casket. Our Blessed Lord isn’t merely making a point or punctuating a sermon – He is acting out of compassion for the widow and out of love for the fallen man. “Do not weep,” He says with empathy to the woman who has been victimized by death. And the touch of Jesus restores the widow’s son to life. “Young man, I say to you, arise,” He says, using the same words He said to raise the little girl from her mortal slumber.

To the Christian, to the one touched by Jesus, to the one who is on the receiving end of the Word of God – death is indeed nothing more than a slumber. Its brutality and its seeming finality are brushed away by the Word of Jesus as the widow’s son is roused from his nap.

That, dear friends, is the power of the Word of God. That, dear brothers and sisters is why we are here. That, dear children of God is why what goes on in this place is a matter of life and death.

Our Lord did not raise people from the dead long-distance. Rather, He came to them, to their bodies, to their grieving family members. He comes to us today in His Word and Sacrament. If you want to be revived and cured of death, if you want to, in the words of the ancient hymn, dread your grave as little as your bed, then this is where you must be, here, where Jesus speaks, where His Word sounds forth, defeating death and breathing life into our wearied bodies and souls.

Some may protest that they can be in God’s presence apart from the Church, that the Lord is present in places where people would rather be, more self-serving places than being here with the people of God. Perhaps. But Jesus has promised to be where His Word is proclaimed and preached, where His body and blood are given to eat and to drink, where his ministers absolve and baptize. And you cannot find that at the golf course on in the fishing camp. You won’t hear that sleeping in or going to brunch.

Christianity is a matter of life and death.

Even where you don’t see the face of Jesus, you see the face of His spokesman. For when the prophet or pastor speaks the Lord’s Words with the Lord’s authorization, the result is the same – life is wrenched from death, and the Lord’s forgiveness overpowers sin.

In our Old Testament it isn’t our Lord Jesus who raises the dead – at least not directly. Rather, it is a preacher, Elijah, a man whose calling was to be the hands of the Lord’s compassion and the mouthpiece of the Lord’s mercy as a bringer of life – even to the deceased. And giving us a preview of our Lord’s miracle to come centuries in the future, Elijah breathes life into a son of a widow who had died. By the authority and the grace of God, Elijah, the preacher and pastor of the Lord, in whose mouth is found the Word of the Lord, is able to present to the widow her once dead son with the proclamation: “See, your son lives!”

“The vict’ry’s won! Death no longer can appall me,” as we sing at Easter, and as we will sing today on this mini-Easter, this little Lord’s Day festival of the resurrection.

This hope of the resurrection, this reality that the Lord’s death conquered death and the Lord’s rising to life is a guarantee of our own resurrection by being baptized into Him is the very reason St. Paul can ask us not to lose heart in the face of tribulation. St. Paul prays for his hearers to be “strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man.” He prays that we might be “rooted and grounded in love” – a love of the very Christ “who dwells in [our] hearts through faith.”

For death has been defeated, destroyed, conquered, and forever removed from power over us – even though we Christians will too die. But for us, death is not final. Death is not the end of life, but rather the gateway for eternal life – not by our merits, but as Paul proclaims: “through faith.” For what we hear again and again in the Word of God proclaimed to us under the authority of Christ is given to us that we “may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height – to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge,” that we may be “filled with the fullness of God.”

Knowledge of the Bible is a good thing. Knowing the doctrine of the Church is a good thing. But both of these are not ends in themselves, but rather means to the Gospel, to the Good News that Jesus has destroyed death once and for all on the cross, and we, like the helpless sons of widows, are raised to new life through His Word. For as St. Paul points out, that is the kind of knowledge that surpasses knowledge. It isn’t mere factual data, but rather knowledge of love.

It is out of love that the Lord conquers the evil one. It is out of love that He raises us to life again. It is out of love that He died for us. And it is out of love that He carries out His will, all for the good of His creation – whether we comprehend all the reasons or not.

In our sermon hymn, we sang “The Will of God is Always Best.” And like the widows who lost their sons in our Scripture accounts, and like our Lord’s own blessed mother, whose heart was pierced by sorrow at the death of her Son, we may have no idea why the Lord’s will takes the shape that it does, but like these daughters of Eve, we will live to see the day when all the dead in Christ will rise by the Word of God, when our bodies themselves will be restored to life anew, a life that will have no end.

This is why we are here, dear friends. Today, this very hour is a matter of life and death. Our Lord is giving you life today, His life, God’s life, never-ending life, to the praise and glory of His Father, world without end. Amen.

In the name of the Father and of the + Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Getting Back to Abnormal

Things are indeed getting back to abnormality post-Gustav.

Our Audubon Aquarium of the Americas (where we have a family pass) is offering a "welcome home" special on the IMAX - $5 per person. We decided to take the Aquarium up on its offer - especially since Lion Boy was such a good sport about our hasty retreat and motel exile.

After a visit to the Winn-Dixie to stock up on a few things that we might have to throw away next week when Hurricane Ike comes, we headed on over to Algiers Point (about two miles from home) to catch the ferry to New Orleans.

At the ferry station, we met a guy dressed up like a pirate, complete with tricorn hat, saber, and parrot (actually a conure, a small member of the parrot family) on his shoulder. I realize this may sound unusual to most people, but such sights are quite reassuring as evidence that life is returning to the way we know it in New Orleans.

"Captain Papillon" rode the ferry with us. His house still has no power, and he and Tupelo (his conure) decided to take a walk rather than sit in the dark. Leo (The Friend of All Animals) was delighted to have Tupelo perch on his finger. We wandered over to the Aquarium and purchased our tickets.

We decided to get a bite, and headed on over to the Riverwalk - a mall of sorts on the Mississippi. It was good to hear live music as a band was playing blues outside of Poppy's seafood restaurant. The Riverwalk was nearly deserted - except for a lot of soldiers (who were, no doubt, dispatched to New Orleans to counter any possible looting). It was indeed good to see the troops sent to assure that looting would not be tolerated, but I have to admit that I found it a little bit disconcerting to see a young lady soldier with an M16 thrown over her soldier listening to her iPod with headphones stuck in her ears. It seems to me that if you're entrusted with an automatic "assault rifle" (as anti-gun folk like to call such weapons) while walking around the general public in a mall, you should be a little more alert than your typical teen bopping to Britney.

We headed up to the food court, and more evidence of a restoration of life as usual was evidenced by the fact that the New Orleans Original Daiquiri shop was open for business. Being able to buy alcohol in New Orleans is a sort-of code that says everything is okay. The only time alcohol is banned is when something ominous is happening - like a hurricane evacuation or an election. So, like my friend Col. Richard Esau, a highly decorated USMC brigade commander in Vietnam explained his trick of smoking a cigar when things were grim in combat (so as to reassure jumpy young Marines by his calmness), there is something very reassuring about seeing frozen daiquiris available at the mall.

After a quick bite, we headed back to the Aquarium. Leo visited his many friends, the white alligator, the sand tiger sharks, the nurse sharks, the hammerheads, and then played on the little slide in the playground area. We ran into a parishioner (my former student) Samantha, who now works at the Aquarium - and she let us pet the little snake she was displaying. Leo again petted the stingrays, and watched the penguins.

Afterwards, we watched the IMAX - Whales and Dolphins in 3D (and I can't believe how well-done the 3D is these days! It is simply mindblowing). However, the film didn't hold Lion Boy's attention too well (as much as he loves whales and dolphins), but he hung in there. Afterwards, we all went to the Cafe du Monde for coffee and beignets.

With Leo fading, and the ferry approaching the East side of the river, we traipsed back to the ferry station to once again see our new old friends Captain Papillion and Tupelo! On the boat, the Captain drew his saber from its scabbard and allowed Leo to handle it. It wasn't sharp, but indeed, it was a real saber. I'm sure walking around town with a sword and allowing a toddler to handle it is probably illegal in the upper 49, but in Louisiana, well laissez-faire mes amis.

Upon landing on the other side (Old Algiers Point, a neighborhood quite a bit like our own Old Gretna), we were treated to yet more evidence of the normal abnormalcy. At the little bar across the street, a small but robust spontaneous street party was in full swing. An NOPD car was pulled aside as cops were hanging out. There was a military hummer there as well, and several soldiers were joining the party. Ladies (and their dogs) were decked out in fairy wings, and a brass band (complete with banjo and string bass) was playing. Captain Papillion and Tupelo dropped by as well. An older couple sipped brandies under an umbrella. A lady photographer recognized Leo, and took Mrs. Hollywood's e-mail address so she could send some previously taken shots of Lion Boy to us.

So, for the time being, New Orleans is still New Orleans. It was indeed good to see ferries and fairies, army captains and a pirate captain, snakes, stingrays, and sharks; bands, brandy, and beer; dressed up dogs and a tropical parrot, rifles and a saber, and people of every age and ethnic background swapping stories of the latest hurricane evacuation, hanging out like old friends, and enjoying the company and the ambiance.

Soon, our attention will turn to Ike. But for now, I think I'll put my feet up and light a cigar, just as the Colonel taught me to do when people need to be kept calm, clear-headed, and combat ready.

Abortion and Political Strategy

Unfortunately, abortion has become a political football, since the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that effectively overturned all state regulation and/or abolition of abortion on demand. In essence, the federal courts have seized lawmaking ability from the state legislatures. So, abortion opponents have been pursuing a strategy that involves overturning the decision, either by a Constitutional amendment (which requires too many majorities to make this a likelihood), or the more common strategy of seeking to secure a pro-life president in the hopes that pro-abortion justices will retire or die in office on his watch, so that the pro-life president can appoint pro-life justices in hope of eventually overturning the decision over the course of time.

This strategy has been a failure. Even after decades of pro-life presidents, Roe v. Wade still stands. The states are hamstrung. Babies are slaughtered in the U.S. by the millions - all made legal by less than a dozen individuals.

And even if this strategy results in a majority of justices willing to overturn the decision, that fragile balance can (and likely will) be overturned by the pro-abortion side. Thus the question of infanticide is likely to be forever stuck between the pendulum swings of elected presidents - with the federal legislature and the state legislatures (i.e. the people) completely removed from the process.

What we currently have is a judicial dictatorship that can only be curtailed incrementally when one of the dictators dies - when whichever side happens to control the presidency at that moment gets to set the policy for what may be decades. We pro-lifers are utterly dependent on politicians who claim to be pro-life (whether they truly are or arent, whether they are staunch or lukewarm), and we're dependent upon the judges they appoint to be honest and never to change their minds over a lifetime of jurisprudence. This one issue is all-consuming, and may cause us to elect a president (and/or a party) based on this one issue alone, which gives that party a monopolistic stranglehold on the pro-life constituency, and thus the ability to take us for granted because, after all, are we going to vote for another party that is not committed to life?

The founders never intended this kind of dictatorship. And the political parties of both sides are exploiting the abortion issue to win votes. Congress has the Constitutional remedy right now to end this dance of death, to overturn Roe v. Wade apart from the presidency, and restore this issue to the control of the states - where it belongs constitutionally.

Here is an explanation of how this works, written by a pro-life congressman:

"One of the most contentious issues in our public life over the past three and a half decades has been abortion. As a physician, and in particular as an obstetrician who has delivered over 4,000 babies, I have always had a special interest in the subject of abortion. When I studied medicine at the Duke Medical School from 1957 to 1961, the subject was never raised. By the time of my medical residency at the University of Pittsburgh in the mid-1960s, though, wholesale defiance of the laws against abortion was taking place in various parts of the country, including my own.

Residents were encouraged to visit various operating rooms in order to observe the procedures that were being done. One day I walked an operating room without knowing what I was walking into, and the doctors were in the middle of performing a C-section. It was actually an abortion by hysterectomy. The woman was probably six months along in her pregnancy, and the child she was carrying weighed over two pounds. At that time doctors were not particularly sophisticated, for lack of a better term, when it came to killing the baby prior to delivery, so they went ahead with delivery and put the baby in a bucket in the corner of the room. The baby tried to breathe, and tried to cry, and everyone in the room pretended the baby wasn't there. I was deeply shaken by this experience, and it hit me at that moment just how important the life issue was.

I have heard the arguments in favor of abortion many times, and they have always disturbed me deeply. A popular academic argument for abortion demands that we think of the child in the womb as a 'parasite' that the woman has the right to expel from her body. But the same argument justifies outright infanticide, since it applies just as well to an infant outside the womb: newborns require even more attention and care, and in that sense are even more 'parasitic.'

If we can be so callous as to refer to a growing child in a mother's womb as a parasite, I fear for our country's future all the more. Whether it is war or abortion, we conceal the reality of violent acts through linguistic contrivances meant to devalue human lives we find inconvenient. Dead civilians become 'collateral damage,' are ignored altogether, or are rationalized away on the Leninist grounds that that to make an omelet you have to break some eggs. (The apostle Paul, on the other hand, condemned the idea that we should do evil that good may come). People ask an expectant mother how her baby is doing. They do not ask how her fetus is doing, or her blob of tissue, or her parasite. But that is what her baby becomes as soon as the child is declared to be unwanted. In both cases, we try to make human life into something less than human, simply according to our will.

When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, striking down abortion laws all over the country, even some supporters of abortion were embarrassed by the decision as a matter of constitutional law. John Hart Ely, for instance, wrote in the Yale Law Review, 'What is frightening about Roe v. Wide is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language in the Constitution, the framers' thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure.' The decision, he said, 'is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.'

The federal government should not play any role in the abortion issue, according to the Constitution. Apart from waiting forever for Supreme Court justices who will rule in accordance with the Constitution, however, Americans who care about our fundamental law and/or are concerned about abortion do have some legislative recourse. Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution gives Congress the power to strip the federal courts , including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction over broad categories of cases. In the wake of the 1857 Dred Scott decision, abolitionists spoke of depriving the courts of jurisdiction in cases dealing with slavery. The courts were stripped of authority over Reconstruction policy in the late 1860s.

If the federal courts refuse to abide by the Constitution, the Congress should employ this constitutional remedy. By a simple majority, Congress could strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over abortion, thereby overturning the obviously unconstitutional Roe. At that point, the issue would revert to the states, where it constitutionally belongs, since no appeal to federal courts on the matter could be heard. (I have proposed exactly this in H.R. 300.)

Let us remember, though that the law can only do so much. The law isn't what allowed abortion: abortions were already being done in the 1960s against the law. The courts came along and conformed to the social and moral changes that were taking place in society. Law reflects the morality of the people. Ultimately, law or no law, it is going to be up to us as parents, as clergy, and as citizens - in the way we raise our children, how we interact and talk with our friends and neighbors, and the good example we give - to bring about changes in our culture toward greater respect for life.

To those who argue that we cannot allow the states to make decisions on abortion since some will make the wrong ones, I reply that that is an excellent argument for world government - for how can we allow individual countries to decide on abortion or other moral issues, if some may make the wrong decisions? Yet the dangers of a world government surely speak for themselves.

Let us therefore adopt the constitutional position, one that is achievable and can yield good results but that shuns the utopian idea that all evil can be eradicated. The Founding Fathers' approach will not solve all problems, and it will not be perfect. But anyone expecting perfection in this world is going to be consistently disappointed.

The same holds true for issues like prayer in schools. Such issues were never meant to be decided by federal judges."

Pages 58-61 of The Revolution: a Manifesto by ten term pro-life congressman Ron Paul, M.D. (TX-R), Grand Central Publishing, New York, NY, 2008.

Home, Sweet Home!

Thanks for your prayers, everyone.

We drove home from Texarkana this morning, and arrived about 5:00 pm. Parts of the West Bank lack power, and a lot of stores are closed, e.g. Lowes, while others are open, e.g. Home Depot - where I had to buy a wrench to turn our gas back on. But our neighborhood, "Old Gretna", has very little damage - a few toppled fences and mussed up trees. Folks are drib-drabbing back home and are thankful to find their homes largely as they left them.

Leo has been "crashed" since before we got home, and boy, won't he be surprised to wake up on his own couch! He was a real trooper throughout our sojourn - though all the talk of collapsing levees had him upset a few times out of the blue during our travels. It goes to show that toddlers are always listening. I want to take him to the levee tomorrow to show him that "the water at the levee is [not] big" and indeed, there is nothing to worry about.

While giving thanks to God for sparing us, and while unloading the carrier on top of the van, the St. Joseph's Church carillon began to ring out ancient hymns of the Church - which is exactly what was was going on when I was loading the carrier Saturday morning before our departure. There is something profound about that, maybe something like the line from one of those ancient hymns of the Church: "Holy God, We Praise Thy name" (LSB 940), stanza 3:
"And from morn to set of sun / Through the Church the song goes on."

We Christians have been singing this hymn (which is actually a versification of the Te Deum Laudamus) since the 4th century - through heresies and schisms, through wars and pestilence, through suffering and death, through politics and revolutions, through the collapse of empires and the rise of nations, through reformations and counter-reformations, and yes, even through departing and returning from hurricane evacuations.

What a joy that the Church - built on the bedrock of Christ the Cornerstone and founded upon the rock of St. Peter's apostolic ministry and confession - remains constant century after century as every generation prays the Lord to protect us "from lightning and tempest; from all calamity by fire and water; and from everlasting death."

Thanks be to God for His mercy in permitting 2 million people to flee the storm and for bequeathing His Church with the traditional liturgy and hymnody to bring them comfort in such times.

We continue to pray for those whose homes have been damaged, those who have suffered injury, as well as for those who are yet to be affected by inclement weather yet to come this hurricane season. We have already made motel reservations in case Hurricane Ike shows up in the Gulf.

Changeolatry

A hundred years after G.K. Chesterton's appeal from his timeless work Orthodoxy that it is the world, not our vision, that we should be changing, we're being bombarded by the word "change" and told it is we that must do the changing. "Change" has become a kind of god to be served on secular and Christian altars alike.

Of course, this is an election year, and the appeal to "change" is a way to sell us on the less-experienced candidate (in this case, Barack Obama) - which is always amusing, for when the same candidate, who runs on the need for "change", wins his election and gets comfy in his job, he will inevitably later run for re-election taking the opposite tack, playing the "experience" card. The washed-up Clintons have been hoist on their own petards by initially selling themselves as the bringers of salutary "change", portraying themselves as the "cool" personifications of youth. But now, bearing the inevitable marks of age, have had to repudiate this concept in favor of "experience" as a way to sell themselves. Obviously, the strategy didn't pay off for them this time. Especially not in the culture of change-worship that they worked so hard to foster.

Of course, this election is no different, and both sides are spinning their propaganda like Charlotte working feverishly to save Wilbur's bacon.

However, there is something deeper, even sinister, about the mantra "change." "Change" as a strategy doesn't really belong to the realm of the politician - he's only borrowing it from the marketer. For the salesman, in order to "close the deal," depends on change-appeal to separate the client from his money.

For example, if you take care of your clothing, it should well last you ten or fifteen years - maybe even longer. But if everyone were to hang on to their duds that long, the apparel industry would collapse. So, this calls for creating a culture of "fashion" - that just so happens to render perfectly good clothing obsolete long before the stitches and buttons begin to fail, even as rapidly as quarterly.

The same is true for automobiles. A car that is three years old, argues the salesman, is out of date and in need of a trade-in. For who would want to be seen in an older model car? People might begin to talk...

Hence the concept of "style." Clothing, cars, gadgets, home decor, haircuts, and music - especially in the realm of the "popular" - must change rapidly to keep the production line humming. And it is the ad-man's job to make sure the consumers buy into the need to purchase new widgets to replace the "old" - which is increasingly not chronologically old at all. The marketers are in the business of mandating (or at least directing) what is "cool" and what is "uncool."

The entire capitalist model of economics is based on the increasingly quickening pace of change and the perceived need not to be seen as outmoded. This desire to be perceived as young - especially by the Peter Pan-like baby-boom generation - has been like rocket fuel to the economy. In with the new, out with the old. In fact, it is becoming harder to find such people as craftsmen who perform maintenance on clocks and watches, TV repairmen, shoe repairmen, or any other such fields devoted to keeping things working for a longer time. Instead, we are increasingly a throw-away consumer culture that is less and less attached to things of the past.

And notice that all of this is driven by the culture of change.

People have come to expect change for change's sake. Not changing is seen as "boring." Rapid change is seen as "exciting." Perhaps this contributes to the rapidly climbing divorce rate. Perhaps this is why politicians, even those who run on "family values" can cheat on their wives with younger women, marry their mistresses ("trophy wives"), and carry on in public life courting the Christian vote and touting themselves as honorable with really no fallout to speak of. "Trading in" is simply our way of life. It is "change that we believe in" like a god.

The cry for "change, change" has resulted in a change in the very definition of marriage in many jurisdictions in the U.S. The push for change has created pressure for even venerable and respectable institutions to engage in marketing and shameless promotion, promising "change!" with the desperation of the TV ad proclaiming that today's laundry soap is "new and improved!" because of "bluing for extra whiteness" or some such. "Throw out that old box," the commercial implores by implication, "and run out and buy a new one" - lest your shirts lack the whiteness of the Joneses, who are using the "new and improved" Tide.

One venerable institution caught up in the tide of "change" is the Christian Church.

Dating back to the social upheavals of the 1960s (the "youth culture," oral contraception, rebellion against traditional values, etc.) and the change-embracing Second Vatican Council, the Christian Church has been on a harsh trajectory of change now for nearly a half century, and this has given us the mainstreaming of many radical changes in the Church: higher critical biblical scholarship, ecumenism apart from doctrine, women's ordination, a normalization of homosexuality, rejection of ancient liturgical forms, the shift to church services as entertainment, a consumer culture in the church, a push for slogans and branding, a materialistic and faddish "christian pop culture," an increased monitoring of numbers (and measuring success based on those numbers) by church leaders (who prefer the moniker "executives"), a desire to make Christianity (which is, by definition, countercultural) into something "cool" (especially in accordance with the "youth culture"), and the shift from the pastor being the shepherd of the congregation with the vocation of giving pastoral care using the means of grace, towards an emphasis on being a facilitator, cheerleader, or CEO in a business model of organization - seeing himself as a businessman with a product to sell instead of a preacher with a Savior to proclaim.

There is an increasing secularization of the Church - which brings with it the baggage of marketing. And that marketing is impossible without joining the world's chorus of "change for change's sake" - not only driving a wedge between style (lex orandi) and substance (lex credendi), but actually downplaying doctrine for the sake of popular appeal. This is precisely why churches - even in the once-conservative Missouri Synod - are being pushed by their own leadership ("executives") into abandoning tradition (from the Latin: "traditio" from "trado" - to hand over) in favor of mass-marketing and entertainment.

As the synodical president has said in his oft-repeated slogan: "This is not your grandfather's church."

This explains the proliferation of not only megachurches and "contemporary" services, but also niche congregations that seek only certain segments of the population, such as the young, or those who like heavy-metal music, or those who connect with coffee-shop culture. This explains why the cookie-cutter "emergent" model is being pushed from above (the corporate headquarters) - an approach to "doing church" that features pop music, a rejection of clerical vestments and traditional church architecture, a desire to appeal to pop culture, and a downplaying of the mysterious working of the holy sacraments ("emerging" churches within the LCMS will defend their infrequent communion by an appeal to the number of visitors who attend their entertaining services).

We are a church at war with our ancestors.

Some change is indeed good. Changing diapers is good. Changing clothing is good. Changing one's mind (metanoia) about sin when being convicted of the law is good. But we need to remember that God does not change:

• Ps 102:27 - "But You are the same, And Your years will have no end."
• Mal 3:6 - "For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob."
• Jas 1:17 - "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning."

Nor has our need for a Savior changed. Although this runs contrary to the dominant paradigm of progressivism, contemporary mankind is not more enlightened or less sinful than Adam and Eve. Nor does the Church retain the right to change her received doctrine, for she confesses to be "apostolic," preaching the same Gospel as the holy apostles. Even St. Paul, himself an apostle, understands the importance of the tradition he himself received from the other apostles:

1 Cor 11:23-24 - "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered [Latin: trádidi, from "trado"] to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed [Latin: tradebátur, from "trado"] took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

In spite of a culture that hates tradition, the Church is not the Church without it. The Gospel has been "traditioned" to us, one link in the chain at a time, by our pastors, by our parents, by confessors, by witnesses, by Christians from the past two millennia who have faithfully avoided change and kept intact the unchanging catholic and apostolic faith of Holy Scripture, which is the unchanging Word of the immutable God.

My own ecclesiastical district has been rigorously advocating an agenda of change over the past couple years. Almost every communication that comes from our district involves explicit pushes and shoves to "change" - to abandon our traditions, to embrace popular culture, to follow in the footsteps of the latest "gurus" and the trendiest religious fads. Our district has subscribed to an ecumenical Protestant publication (The Parish Paper) that is sent to every parish pastor with copyright permission (and encouragement) to reprint it in church newsletters and the like (though, as far as I can tell, I'm not permitted to reproduce it electronically here). I do not know whether or not these publications are subjected to doctrinal review - though I suspect it hardly matters.

According to Rev. Herb Miller, one of the co-editors (a United Methodist minister), the publication "is ecumenical in the broadest sense of that term, although due to their membership size in comparison to other denominations, the largest percentage of its readers are in seven large mainline denominations: Episcopal, United Church of Christ, Presbyterian, United Methodist, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), American (Northern) Baptists, and Lutheran (ELCA)" and "relies on information derived from sociological research and on-site congregational consulting. It focuses on publishing practical insights and methods that transcend denominational and theological viewpoints and assist clergy and lay leaders of congregations in their efforts to equip and lead congregations toward greater effectiveness."

The editors include Miller, as well as a Disciples of Christ minister named Lyle Schaller, and a lay sociology professor from the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) named Dr. Cynthia Woolever. Here are a few Amazon links: books by Lyle Schaller, books by Herb Miller (of course, this is a more common name, so all of these may not be by the same author), and books by Cynthia Woolever).

As you can see, their works really deal much more with organization and managerial science than anything specific to Christ's Church. The implication is that pastoring a church is no different than being the branch manager of a bank, the president of a stamp collecting club, or the captain of a bowling team. There seems to be no faith in the Holy Spirit to bring people to faith, but rather faith in sociological and business models of organizational success. And that is definitely a change from the teachings of our Lord and of the apostles.

I find it interesting that the Southern District has chosen to send this publication to all of the churches for publication. I believe this is the only sort of publication to which the District subscribes and encourages us to reprint in our newsletters. Of course, the typical issue of The Parish Paper deals with "church growth" and managing "change" - with the implication that we need to change what we are doing - especially in our Divine Services - in order to be "effective."

In the latest issue of The Parish Paper, which is a two-page publication, the word "change" appears 32 times, and the word "changes" shows up 6 times. The words "Jesus," "Christ," and even "God" are nowehere to be found! Nor is there a single citation from the Word of God. Not even one.

I don't blame the editors of The Parish Paper for their approach. They come from more liberal mainline "traditions" (pun intended) within the Christian Church that have a very different understanding of worship and the Divine Service than we Lutherans do.

But one would hope that Lutheran leaders would understand that by turning their guns on tradition and embracing "change" they are really pushing away the Way of the Apostles (which is the Way of our Lord) in favor of the Madison Avenue of the marketing executives.

As Chesterton noted a century ago, it is not the Church's calling to change in order to conform to the world, but rather to call the world to change, to repent, to conform itself to our Lord.

Now that would be "change we can believe in."

Cautiously optimistic, and another update

Thanks for all of your prayers and kind words.

Landfall was near Houma, LA - and our prayers go out to the people at ground zero. Fortunately, Gustav weakened as it got near the coast, and seems to be moving at a pretty good clip - which should limit the amount of damage and floods in any one place.

The City of New Orleans is hanging in there as the levees are holding so far, though all eyes are on the water surging and coming over the top of the levee at the Industrial Canal in the Upper Ninth Ward. Hopefully, the surge will begin to subside soon, and everyone can breathe a sigh of relief.

The West Bank, where we live, seems to have been spared any bad flooding, though there is wind damage and debris everywhere according to local reports. It sure could have been a lot worse! But, until it's completely over, I can't say that we've dodged the bullet - but things are looking up.

On a personal note, we were able to extend our stay here in Texarkana - which is good, because we hope we'll be able to return home before too long, and we weren't looking forward to another road trip today.

Many thanks to my cousin Curt and his wife Tammy in Tulsa, who kindly offered to put us all up - as well as our friends Dennis and Syler in Eustace, TX and our friends Justin and Whitney in Austin (with whom we evacuated for Katrina). We are blessed to have so many people looking out for us.

Kitties are all doing very well - even in spite of being in close quarters. They sure like the king-sized bed. Lion Boy is getting a little stir crazy, but unfortunately, there are no McDonalds' with a playground around here. But, there is the ubiquitous WalMart. Sigh.

Fortunately, the folks with the scary intact male pit bull ("ghetto pony" a.k.a. the Breed of Peace(tm)) in the back of their truck with the tail gate down located five feet from our front door have moved on. There were children walking back and forth, as well as a lot of people with small dogs and cats. It sure made entry into our room a little nerve-racking, as the ever curious Rex (our kitten) was always peering through the opening. We also weren't too keen on Leo, the Friend of All Animals, deciding to "pet the puppy." One of the owners, a teenaged girl, was smacking him around as well. Great. One can only think of the famous last redneck words: "Hey, y'all, watch this!" But like I said, the ghetto pony and his pets have moved on...


In the lobby at breakfast, we ran into a Gretna family. They live near our church, and their son was a volunteer at our VBS this past summer. I was going to make use of a cliché about the lack of immensity of the terrestrial globe, but on second thought, I decided against it.

The staff at La Quinta has been wonderful! We've always had pretty good experiences at this chain, especially since they allow animals at their motels.

We also got a phone call out of the blue from an old friend in Pennsylvania, Yvonne, with whom we'd not spoken in maybe almost a decade! She called an old number, which, I have to presume, Vonage still has being forwarded to our home number, which in turn is being forwarded to my cell. Technology has really changed our lives, hasn't it? Ironically, Yvonne still has neither a computer nor an answering machine (or voicemail) - which we were nagging her about 15 years ago.

Just an observation: the Weather Channel should be renamed The Dope Channel - as it seems like every three minutes the weather reports are interrupted by drug commercials. Also, the personnel don't seem to know what they're talking about half the time. Fortunately, we were more or less able to stream Bob Breck (our local weather man) on the internet. It is virtually impossible for someone outside of New Orleans to cover this story - as the West Bank is south, the East Bank is north, the city is surrounded by Lake Ponchartrain and the Mississippi River, and a network of levees that are simply impossible to understand without knowing the lay of the land. Breck has been coving the hurricanes in New Orleans for thirty years. But enough hurricane news for now.

Anyway, thanks again, everyone!