Freedom's questions

Contemplating concerns about freedom: a) freedom vs perception of sin b) freedom vs responsibility to society c) freedom vs the conscience and right and wrong d) freedom vs how our nation should constrain/compel its citizens. Do any of the questions bother you? Which ones are of concern to you.. Lee Iocacca has a book out "Whe1re have all the leaders gone?" http://www.amazon.com/Where-Have-All-Leaders-Gone/dp/141653247 where he expresses outrage at the lack of leadership moral and political in our country. Which questions should Christians in a democratic society be concerned about??

Where Are We Headed?

 I read a lot of things and watch the news channels.  One thing that I cherish is "freedom".   The Declaration of Independence says:  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, ..."  I would suggest that inherent in these words is the concept of "freedom".    Nowhere in this concept is the idea that this "pursuit" will result in equal results.    I would also stipulate that "freedom of choice" was an attribute bestowed by God on his creation of Man in the Garden.  Man was free to chose to do was God stipulated on not.  He was not forced or coerced.  Does Man always make the right choices?  No. 

In our country, liberty and freedom have been the engine of growth and prosperity.    Can this freedom be abused? Yes, it can.  BUT, that doesn't mean that control instead of freedom is  better.   Gal 5:^{13 "}You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature ^a; rather, serve one another in love. ^14 The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” ^15 If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other."  We are called to be free, but we can of course, misuse that freedom. 

 ^{There is something about freedom that uplifts Man when Christ liberates us if  proper choicesare made.} 

The question then becomes whether in a democratic tradition of liberty that we are under if "loss of freedoms" is something we should be concerned about at all.   In Cor. Paul addresses a secular situation when addressing slavery: I Cor. &: ^22 For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave. ^23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men."   Though specifically in context talking about slavery, the principle that we are "not to become slaves of men" if given a choice is, I believe, a universal principle.  

So, in our democratic republican form of government, are we headed towards becoming "slaves of men?"   Note that this is not asking the question whether we can be Christians while being slaves.   As noted in Cor.  in the verses following 22, we certainly can.  The question is whether, given a choice we should choose to do so.   

Perhaps the following account will shed some light on the current trend:

29th May 2009, 12:27 pm

WASHINGTON —President Obama announced on Friday the creation of a “Czar czar” to oversee the officials he has appointed as czars since taking office. “There are so many people running around the White House who have not gone through any vetting whatsoever that I think it’s important for me to appoint a czar just to keep track of them.”

If only. The president did appoint yet another czar today – a “Cyber Czar” that would somehow protect America’s computer networks. According to David J. Rothkopf of Foreign Policy, this would make the 19th czar position.

In addition to (Border Czar Alan) Bersin, we have energy czar Carol Browner, urban czar Adolfo Carrion, Jr., infotech czar Vivek Kundra, faith-based czar Joshua DuBois, health reform czar Nancy-Ann DeParle, newTARP czar Herb Allison, stimulus accountability czar Earl Devaney, non-proliferation czar Gary Samore, terrorism czar John Brennan, regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, drug czar Gil Kerlikowske, and Guantanamo closure czar Daniel Fried. We also have a host of special envoys that fall into the czar category including AfPak special envoy Richard Holbrooke, Mideast peace envoy George Mitchell, special advisor for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia Dennis Ross, Sudan special envoy J. Scott Gration and climate special envoy Todd Stern.29th May 2009, 12:27 pm

WASHINGTON —President Obama announced on Friday the creation of a “Czar czar” to oversee the officials he has appointed as czars since taking office. “There are so many people running around the White House who have not gone through any vetting whatsoever that I think it’s important for me to appoint a czar just to keep track of them.”

According to the online dictionary a Czar is:a) A person having great power; an autocrat: b) An appointed official having special powers to regulate or supervise an activity

Couple the above with the following:  1) The takeover of the banking industry with associated control 2) The nationalization of GM and dictation of Chairman and  board of directors 3) The appointment of Pay Czar to control pay  {

By JIM KUHNHENN
Associated Press
June 10, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nearly three months after American International Group bonuses provoked an angry reaction in Congress, the Obama administration is ready to issue new regulations limiting the compensation of top executives at financial institutions that have received government rescue funds.}  4) The mandating of health insurance and control by a board to determine acceptable care options 5) The mandating of the kind and type of energy one can use and is available and, we could go on.  

Some would say: 1) the financial crisis demanded intervention in the financial institutions 2) GM and Chrysler were "too big to fail" 3) Executive pay is too large anyway 4) Something must be done about Health Care and 5) We must "save the planet".  In every case there is an equal compelling argument against the actions or proposed actions taken.  For example: 1) Though some actions to free up the credit markets may have been advisable, TARP funds were NOT used in the manner proposed to free up these markets.  Instead, they were used to control the institutions, not buy up toxic assets as proposed.  And, economists predict the "stimulus" bill will do more harm than good.  2) Bankrupcy has occured with GM anyway, but with contract law shredded and the government seizing control 3) Control of pay of leaders of institutions beholden to the govenment is a populist notion, but practically this will lead to a) proposals to control ALL business pay andb) will not attract the talent to properly lead complex industries like the auto industry. 4) There are many options for "reforming health care" without govenment dictating the health of individuals-- removing state barriers, forming cooperatives, etc. 5) There are equal arguments against carbon emissions being "the problem".  And, even if it were, our reductions will have little effect.  For example:http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html, 

The total effect is shown below:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html 

"The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.

Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%."

What does all the above mean for a Christian deciding how to react in a democratic society?? All of the proposals cited above lead to a loss of individual liberty and freedom of each individual.  Ultimately,  control of the freedom and liberty lost will recide in unelected officials in agencies of the federal government.   When you combine health, finances, job pay and control, and energy control of major aspects of your life, you are enslaved to those unelected men.  That is a massive granting of your individual freedom to others.  

Ultimately, trade-offs like the above amount to tradeoffs between freedom and liberty vs security and control.  Presumably: 1) granting of financial controls to government makes your financial situtation more secure and "fair" 2) control of he automoble  industry will lead to cars "better- ie. "greener" for everyone and preserves jobs for a small portion ( 1,000,000 total in extended industries is still small for the total job market)  hence ensures a more secure future 3) Control of pay will redistribute wealth and be fairer to workers, as of course this will benefit everyone 4) nationalized heath care provides security for your heath and 5) reducing cardon emissions will make the planet more secure. 

But, should Christians freely give up their freedom of choice to have these areas dictated by men???  Many will disagree as this answer.  However, I believe the principle of freedom tromps security if a Christian is given a choice.   I Believe that the direction we are headed is destructive of freedom and liberty.  I also believe it is only a matter of time before this trend moves to limit what Christians can say about moral issues, how we employ staff, what we can or cannot do in our buildings, and what we can say or not say.  I believe "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, " We have a choice --at least at the ballot box.  

How Will We Be Remembered?

Martha and I attended the funeral of James Wood on Wednesday.  Many of you know James and his family.  We first know Lisa Wood, his daughter, in Oklahoma and Germany.  Lisa was on a Let's Start Talking team in Germany where we were her Regional Representatives.  She was bright, out going and a lot of fun for her team.  Later, when we moved back to McKinney, we found that her sister was married to Jason Lokey, the son of Carol and Mary Jane Lokey.  We had known the Lockey's since the early 1980's.  James Wood joined our small group bible discussion in  the Altoga area when his health permitted.  He was knowledgable, articulate, and a very nice man.  

At the funeral, all of his surviving children, spoke, and did his brother.  The discription was moving.  So, this naturally brings up the question, of just how will we be remembered, if remembered at all.  Shakesphere said " Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets upon the stage and then is heard no more."  And, the writer James says "What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes."   This would seem to indicate non of us are all that significant in the scheme of things.   When we consider the universe, we are a small speck on planet in a solar system in a galaxy of 200 billion stars in one of over 100 billion galaxies.  

Considering the above, what makes a single life that important??   Certainly, I am sure we all wonder how our children will remember us when we are gone.  And we know that "A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving^a favour rather than silver and gold."  So, considering our insignificance, what do you think: 1) That we be remembered and 2) What governs what we should be remembered for if we are are to be remembered?

 

Life's Concerns by Lynn S. Nored

"Faced" with the seeming trivia on Facebook,  I decided to create a blog called Life's Concerns in order to call attention to what I consider important questions to consider.  For the most part these will be triggered by the everyday events and sometimes the postings I see on Facebook.  

Though Facebook allows one to "track", along with Twitter, the everyday happenings of "friends" there is little availability to really "talk" about ideas or situations.   So.... this at least allows for more expression.  And, since a "link" in Facebook can be provided, if no one wishes to read, they don't have too.