Should the Size of Government Be Cut Drastically? Samuel in the Face of Saul.

In the face of our present political and economic crisis, I believe the most important question is this: Should the Size of Government Be Cut Drastically?

But, is this merely a political concern, or at the deeper level, is it biblical?

Let's consider Samuel in the face of Saul.

The first covenant Yahweh Elohim made with Adam was that of freedom, where as image-bearers of God, we were made to be good stewards of the creation as we build human civilization.

Following the introduction of sin (a/k/a broken trust with God and one another), Yahweh made a series of covenants across the millennia aiming to redeem this broken covenant. The apostle Paul can thus say: "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery" (Galatians 5:1).

In the midst of this redemptive history, judges were ordained by Yahweh, their King, to govern the 12 federated tribes of Israel according to the Law of Moses. This was in service to true freedom. But the Israelites yearned for a human king, such as those in the pagan nations. They rejected the final Judge, Samuel, and embraced Saul as a king, who thus enslaved them through a top-down government.

In my next post, we will look at some details of this pivotal conflict between Samuel and Saul.

Persuasion Impossible?

In 1989-1991, I headed up a pro-life presence at New England's largest abortion center.

Part of the strategy involved our banner with the slogan, "You Have the Power to Choose Life." We also had ten signs that posed thoughtful questions (e.g., "How Does Human Abortion Add to Your Own Dignity?").

One purpose was also to engage in conversation with the hundreds of "pro-choice" supporters recruited from the local colleges by the Boston chapter of the National Organization of Women (NOW).

Two weeks before our first "Sacred Assembly for the Unborn," I visited the street outside Preterm, and chatted with some pro-life activists there who also participated in Operation Rescue (a strategy I rejected on biblical grounds). They supported the forums I did on college campuses, but said that conversations with abortion supporters, and the possibility of persuasion, could not happen on the streets.

Yet, after nine months, and multiple hundreds if not more conversations with "pro-choice" activists, Boston NOW ordered that no more activists be sent there when we were present. The reason? "They are persuading too many of our people."

I have great confidence in the power of the Holy Spirit through sound thinking. In my new initiative, the Pre-Partisan Caucus, I am aiming to get sound thinking into our nation's politics, to effect a national change of mind. Persuasion impossible? I believe not, and in this space I will share the stories as I progress.

###

Sacred Assemblies for the Unborn (1)

Is it possible to literally save tens of thousands of unborn lives with a simple national strategy? Yes.

♦ In 1989-1991, I headed up an effort on Saturday mornings in front of the largest abortion center in Massachusetts, which I now call the Sacred Assemblies for the Unborn (SAU). We saw 200-300 women walk away from their abortion appointments by their own choices.

♦ Many women went to Crisis Pregnancy Centers, gave birth, and a number found Jesus.

♦ After nine months of this witness and worship, the hundreds of college activists recruited by the National Organization for Women (NOW) stopped their counter demonstrations, since we “were persuading too many of them.”

♦ The Brookline Police commended our conduct, and the Boston Globe, other media and the Attorney General could not criticize it.

♦ We started this strategy again on May 14, 2011 in front of Planned Parenthood in the South Bronx, with great fruit. Thousands of people saw us, with overwhelming support. In the next post on this topic I will start sharing street-side stories. Real ministry to hurting people in the name of Jesus.

♦ Click on www.teinet.net/prolife.html for further information, including the signs we used which are visually dominant, and provoke honest thinking. Such thinking always serves the Gospel, and such thinking is what the devil fears.

###

Has the Connecticut Governor Lost His Moxie?

To watch Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy (D) in action, words like moxie, vigor, verve and aggressiveness seem appropriate.

This was evident in his debating style during the 2010 campaign. And after taking office in January, Malloy hosted 17 public meetings across the state seeking input from the citizenry. In the process, he repeatedly expressed his interest in any and all ideas on how to address the 3.7 billion dollar deficit, to simplify government and make the state business friendly. In the honest contest of political ideas, his metamessage was “bring it on.”

After this process, Malloy has now reached a “compromise” with the finance and appropriation committees of the Democrat controlled legislature. The result is a looming 1.5-2.0 billion dollar increase in taxes. There are still outstanding issues concerning public union “concessions,” and the question of the state’s balanced budget law.

In January, I contacted the Governor’s office and went through ten rounds seeking to set up a brief 15-minute meeting with him. My initial inquiry was succinct: “Dear Governor Malloy: If needless redundancies in state law could be cut by 99 percent, and set the economy on fire for every sector of the state, would you be interested? I have a serious ‘pre-partisan’ proposal in this respect, and would love to meet with you.”

My proposal can be seen at www.prepartisan.us, at both the national and state levels. The Governor was given this link, and at his office’s request, I also mailed him a hard copy. These ten rounds lasted three months, and the final answer: “ … we will have to decline your request to meet with Governor Malloy.”

Now my proposal is bold, but also most substantial, and its ethics are well tested. Thus, how seriously should I take the Governor when he cannot even risk 15-minutes in accord with the moxie of his public persona?

###

Core Mission of the TEI

One way to express the core mission of the TEI is this way: To win a debate is not the goal, but to win an honest relationship in the face of a debated issue serves the Gospel.

I have addressed three forums with perhaps the most effective lesbian activist in the nation -- Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. First at Boston University, then at Harvard, then at The First Cathedral in Bloomfield, CT. Arline led the way for the 1989 Gay Rights Bill, and the 2004 Same-Sex Marriage Bill, in the Massachusetts State House. Both first in the nation.

After the third forum, Arline gave me a hug -- and yet we disagree completely on the matter of same-sex marriage. In a recent email, as we are making plans for another forum, Arline said: "You have shown yourself to be a true gentleman and a thoughtful advocate."

For anyone who knows the territory of the debate over same-sex marriage, and realities of the larger pro-homosexual movement, this is a remarkable statement. And able to be unpacked in many honest ways. Arline has given me permission to share this quote.

Jesus said, "Come to me, all you are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light" (Matthew 11:28-30).

To accomplish the mission of "first the Gospel, then politics ..." and thus make a difference in the culture, is no easy pursuit. But it becomes possible when the Gospel is truly first in every breath we take.

###

New York City Council Against the Gospel

At present, the New York City Council has 24 of the 27 necessary votes in place to put discriminatory legal burdens on the 23 Crisis Pregnancy Centers in the five boroughs. This is driven by the money of Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).

These rules directly oppose pro-life centers that embody the generous nature of the Gospel in caring for needy and hurting women, and their unborn children. It is not enough for these council members to support human abortion -- they also see fit to try and wipe out the freedom of those who believe otherwise.

What to do? If three simple questions are posed directly and often enough to each of these council members, then the moral, intellectual and spiritual weakness of the abortion position will be exposed:

1] Do you oppose male chauvinism? [It is easy to show how the whole abortion industry is driven by men who get women pregnant and take off.]

2] Do you believe in honest science? [It is easy to show the biologically discrete humanity of the unborn.]

3] Do you believe in the God of the Bible? [Many who politically support abortion also claim to believe in the God of the Bible.]

To say "yes" to any of these questions leads to conversion to the truth. To say "no" exposes the council members to the lie of the abortion position. They then have to justify a chauvinistic, unscientific and unbiblical position. And this they cannot do.

Thus, such questions honestly and publicly undermine the psychological confidence for those who support human abortion and oppose pro-life centers. This is necessary to accomplish.

###

Provocative Reality: "The Pain That Dares Not Speak Its Name"

As we consider the onward push for nation-wide same-sex marriage, and open homosexuality in the military, here is a question: Is our culture being shaped by the rule of law, or is it being molded to conform to some deep pain that can never be satisfied by law?

In 1895, Oscar Wilde spoke of "the love that dares not speak its name" in his public trial for homosexual conduct.

I once spoke of "the pain that dares not speak its name" to a crowded and astounded legislative assembly.

But the content was not original; rather I was speaking the words of others.

In 1988, while working on my Th.M. in Ethics and Public Policy at Harvard, I was in a class on feminist ethics. One day at lunch, three female classmates sat down with me.

One woman spoke, saying, "You know John, for an evangelical, you're a nice guy." As if encountering an oxymoron. She continued, "The three of us are lesbian, and every lesbian we know has been physically, sexually and/or emotionally abused by some man in her early years." I was stunned, as this was new to me.

I immediately prayed in my spirit, "Dear God above, has the church heard this, or do we just pass judgment?" This was an anecdote, not a statistical claim, but I have since learned how pervasive it is, and for male homosexuals as well.

In 2002, I was testifying before the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature, with 600 people crowded into the main room and two overflow rooms, and it was being broadcast live on CT-N.

I shared this story from my Harvard classmates. When I came to the line about the abuse, I could hardly hear myself speak due to the groans that then filled the room. Afterward, a friend told me that all the groans came from women wearing same-sex marriage stickers. They then literally held their breaths until I was done with that thought.

Despite the highly anguished response to my testimony, the media had no interest in follow through, and never even attempted to criticize it. Silence.

This is reality. This is the forbidden question in politics and media, for such abuse is far broader than just that experienced by people driven into homosexual identities. Unless those of us who are servants of the Gospel can speak to the pain that dares not name itself, to an undeserved shame imposed on so many children and teenagers -- giving love and hope for deliverance instead -- then our national politics will continue to get sucked into the cesspool.


###