You are currently browsing the monthly archive for January 2008.
This is a rare recording of J.R.R. Tolkien reciting the Ring Verse.
Doug Wilson writes:
Yesterday the congregation of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church voted (without dissent) to leave the PCA. They also voted to have Steve Wilkins continue as their pastor, and to approach the CREC for membership. They have been adopted as a mission church of Grace Covenant Church in Nacogdoches, Texas, pastored by Randy Booth. Steve was a member in good standing of the Louisiana Presbytery and consequently may transfer his membership according to the PCA BCO (38-3a), with the presbytery simply recording the action. The Louisiana Presbytery has been formally notified of all this. We welcome Auburn Avenue into our fellowship of churches with an odd mixture of grief and joy.
This is disheartening from the side of one who cherishes catholicity. Anyone who has met Steve knows his heart and passion for the gospel proclamation. Nevertheless, I respect the church’s unanimous decision to leave the PCA. As for me, I will continue to pursue a call in the PCA. I love my denomination and intend to shepherd God’s flock wherever I am led.
Anyone who knows me well knows that principle always outweighs pragmatism. I refuse to hand over my right to vote my conscience for the right to please the majority. Part of my young life has been dedicated to communicating this message.
This evening was another example of pragmatism at work. The party abandoned all principles and voted for the most electable. My state of Florida decided to endorse Senator John McCain, while Dr. Ron Paul received over 55,000 votes, placing him last among the ever-diminishing pack.
McCain has received the righteous wrath of radio stars like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Limbaugh has observed numerous times that a McCain victory will end the Reagan coalition and the Republican Party as we know it. In my estimation, the Republican Party has been dead for a long time; it is just that the carcasses do not seem to rot as quickly. If anyone put a seal of death on the GOP it was George Bush. Bush did everything Republicans claim to oppose. He grew the government like a spoiled father rears his son: with uncontrolled and unrestricted boundaries. The sky is the limit in this abusive and destructive administration. Nevertheless, if the Limbaugh’s and the rest of the neo-conservatives wish to set a timetable for the destruction of their own party, then let it be at the Convention.
Certainly not all in the GOP is lost. Ron Paul is still in it. Why does he remain in the GOP and not embrace another party? Because the media and the establishment political leaders have too much at stake. Other voices, other parties would conflict too much with the establishment’s agenda, which incidentally coincides with the media’s. Ron Paul still remains as the lonely voice in the political wilderness crying out: Return to the Constitution! Perhaps that is his role at this point in history. Perhaps Super Tuesday may be a surprise for all the pundits who have essentially written him off the polls. The 72-year old is not dead yet; he still has–last I checked– over 300 million people to educate.
Though I am principled, I am also realistic. Here’s my realism: Paul’s campaign is not over and there is much more of Paul left in this campaign. I refuse to embrace the pessimism of some. Months ago Rudy Giuliani was the front-runner. This evening, he has proven to be a complete failure. Result: Rudy is gone. Paul is still in.
The future of this election holds a few interesting developments:
First, Giuliani will endorse McCain. This will enhance the warmongering thirst of some Republicans and will naturally boost McCain’s campaign. Rudy may now be vying for an Attorney General position in McCain’s administration.
Secondly, Huckabee will stay in the race and split the evangelical votes with Romney. Huckabee has played a central role in McCain’s victories. If Huckabee were not drawing the evangelical votes, Romney would be ahead of McCain this evening. Huckabee may now be strategizing–secretly–with McCain for a future VP position, though I do not discount Thompson for that role. Hence, Huckabee is crucial to a McCain victory.
Thirdly, Romney is somewhat doomed. His millions have earned him few victories and new enemies. It is difficult to decipher Romney’s strategy on Super Tuesday. He needs several important victories on February 5th to propel his candidacy in the final states and perhaps take it to the Convention.
Finally, Ron Paul is the unspoken hero. He understands the economy; he grasps the significant philosophical questions of foreign policy, and he understands that this is a Republic, not a fascist state. His future depends heavily on February 5th. Furthermore, he still has money left, which McCain does not.
The Republicans who endorse McCain support him because of his straight talk on the war. Indeed his straight talk has brought him far; far into the center of a party who pleads for more war; a hundred years of war. Republicans may have found a man who can beat the Democratic nominee, but if this is a victory, it is a Pyrrhic victory. The Republican victor will cheer, while the world bleeds and our country suffers with tears of recession.
Mark Larsen endorses Ron Paul on the air after an interview with Mitt Romney.
Kucinich may see UFO’s and endorse socialism–two things I pray I never see–but he has been a strong voice from the start opposing this unconstitutional war. The three Democrats standing simply do not have the courage of a Kucinich when it comes to the war. They are too entrenched in Washington politics.
Kucinich…see you in 8 years.
One of my favorite interviews thus far. Thank you Glenn.
GLENN: I mean, you know, we just — I just happen to disagree with you, but I respect you, sir, for your opinion. I have said this, you know, behind your back. So let me say it to your face. I think you are the closest we have running to a founding father. You seem to be the only guy who has actually read the federalist papers. So I appreciate your efforts, sir.
This is a gloriously favorable article about Ron Paul’s policies.
If I’m right and Ron Paul doesn’t just fade away as the primary season progresses, he’ll make a real difference. His anti-war message would make life difficult for Hillary Clinton, by drawing away the most pacifist elements of the Democratic base. But it’s on the economics side where I think he could make the biggest impact. In an election year in which bigger government, higher taxes, and protectionism seem to have so much momentum, Paulonomics may be just what is needed to rebalance the debate in favor of growth.
Thompson withdrew from the race. Many hailed him as the front runner before he entered the race. However, his third place in South Carolina was too overwhelming for a candidate who invested so much in his high positioning in that state. Fox reports:
Thompson was the closest to a Constitutionalist in the Republican race, save Ron Paul. Unfortunately, his position on the war was the same as the other four neo-cons on the stage. Thompson also considered himself a Federalist. As a southern and more traditional candidate, he may be orchestrating a possible VP move should a more moderate Republican win the nominee. Perhaps some of his supporters will take Federalism seriously and embrace a true Constitutionalist and the only peace candidate, Ron Paul.
Ron Paul Podcast #8
Topic: Military and the Future
This podcast lasts 5 minutes and 30 seconds.
Podcast Notes:
On this podcast I would like to analyze briefly the military scenario in Iraq. I will be borrowing some thoughts from an insightful article by Vedran Vuk and Walter Block.
Technologies that to us seem to be yesterday’s innovations such as nuclear bombs, stealth fighters, and bunker busters are unrealizable dreams for most nations in any era.
Not only is our technology superb, but our soldiers are the best in the world. In every imaginable level, American troops are superior. They have superior captains and thus a superior military. We can all agree that this is incontestable. Read the rest of this entry »
On a personal note, I just received a call from my father in-law. He was enthusiastic about the fact that he and his wife have already voted in Florida. After analyzing the candidates and after hearing his passionate son-in-law, it was evident, only one person cares about liberty and the Constitution. You guessed it!
In the early debates, Ron Paul was booed for calling the Iraq war a blunder and saying the terrorists of 9-11 were over here because we were over there. Rudy got a roaring ovation for denouncing him. The Michigan GOP chairman demanded that Paul be excluded from all future debates. But whenever Fox News ran a post-debate poll, Paul came out on top. And in Michigan, he paid back the GOP chair by thumping Fred Thompson and America’s mayor.–Patrick J. Buchanan
This may be the boost every Paulinian has been expecting. The significance of this positioning is that it places Ron Paul in a state of prominence on Sunday and Monday news program both on TV and on the radio. I realize he will not be the star of the beltway boys, but I do know that every time the Nevada chart appears people will see Paul’s name right next to Romney’s.
In South Carolina, Fred Thompson will end in third or fourth. Either way it is a defeat for the Senator who invested so much in South Carolina. The most recent news is that Thompson and his advisors will spend tomorrow thinking about their new strategy. Will he continue in the race and draw evangelical votes away from John McCain or will he drop out and endorse McCain?
Ron Paul benefits tremendously today. Since Thompson and Hunter (the only two Reaganesque) are technically out of the race, Republicans will have to re-consider their priorities. Will they continue to support–as Neo Con National Review did–Mitt Romney, who is more than willing to adjust his positions to whatever state suitable or will they finally open their eyes to support the champion of the Constitution: Dr. Ron Paul.
Broadband Streams:
Most Players Click Here: Listen Now
Real Media Player Click Here: Listen Now
Windows Media Player click here: Listen Now
Mauro, Philip, More than a Prophet. Grace Abounding Ministries, Inc. 1919.
I was first introduced to Philip Mauro a few years ago when I became suspicious of the A-Millennial interpretation of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24. In this perspective, Matthew 24 prophesied a future tribulation, though not like Dispensational tribulationism, nevertheless, it still portrayed a time of worldly persecution and earthly defeat for the Church. They (A-mils) argued that the Church won the spiritual battle, but it was never the intent that the Church would triumph on earth, rather she looked to another city.
I stumbled into a preterist site, which contained some dangerous ideas, but nevertheless, I thought it wise to look carefully through some of its articles. There were several articles by Mauro on Daniel and Matthew. Mauro was both insightful and a faithful exegete of the text. He dealt carefully with each passage without doing exegetical gymnastics with certain clear texts like Matthew 24. Since then, I have read through various portions of his commentary on Revelation: Of Things Which Soon Must Come to Pass published in 1933.
In this small book, “More than a Prophet,” Mauro answers objections from a unknown classical dispensationalists who argues vehemently for the postponement theory. The book reads like Paul’s discourse in Romans 9 with the unknown objector. The unknown writer argues the traditional case for Dispensational thinking that the kingdom was offered to the Jews, however the Jews did not embrace the kingdom and therefore the kingdom was postponed.
Mauro argues strongly that the kingdom was a spiritual kingdom. Since the kingdom was at hand, John the Baptist’s prophecy was fulfilled in the first century with the coming of Messiah. Messiah brought with him a spiritual kingdom offered to all who would repent of their sins. Mauro writes:
Therefore, in the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, we have, as regards this present age, but one kingdom; and that is a kingdom which is entered only by the new birth. The boundaries of that kingdom are purely spiritual (pg. 48).
Mauro seeks to preserve the traditional A-Millennial position that the kingdom had only spiritual manifestations and not earthly. In attempting to correct the Dispensational error of a future earthly kingdom–during the 1,000 year reign of Christ after the Tribulation–Mauro commits the fallacy made by many by offering an unbiblical dualism.
In his defense of a spiritual kingdom, Mauro fails to underscore the consequences of regeneration to the earthly realm, thus separating Christ’s kingdom into a purely abstract expression. Mauro also fails to apply the same hermeneutic that he applied to the Olivet Discourse. In the Olivet Discourse, Mauro understood that the “coming in the clouds” was a strong Old Covenant imagery (Isa.19) indicating that the coming indicated judgment, physical judgment. In the same manner, the kingdom of peace that has come upon us is in our midst, not merely in our hearts, but spreading throughout all the earth for the glory of the King.
I do not recommend Philip Mauro book More than a Prophet unless you are interested in refuting traditional 19th century forms of argumentation. If this is the case, I can recommend better resources. Nevertheless, I strongly recommend his other works which can be easily accessed.
In Washington, differences are a thing of the past. Republicans and Democrats exchange favors as if they were trading baseball cards in their boyhood. Paul Roberts is correct when he says: “The US Constitution has few friends in the capital city.”
Rep. Ron Paul continues to trail his opponents in national polls. He’s yet to finish in the top three of any state contests. (He placed fourth in the Michigan primary last night, ahead of Rudy Giuliani, whom he beat in Iowa, and Fred Thompson, whom he bested in New Hampshire.)But his passionate, Web-savvy supporters have always forged a community online, where sites independent of his campaign such as Daily Paul, Primarily Paul and Ron Paul Nation have continually popped up.
And the latest may be one of the most impressive of all. Ultimate Ron Paul was created by Richard Viguerie, often dubbed the “funding father of the conservative movement.” Viguerie, who founded Conservative Digest magazine in the 1970s, pioneered the use of computerized direct mail, helping raise billions for conservative organizations. Most recently, he authored “Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big-Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause.”
Drudge Report links to a new article from the LA Times:
Well, he’s hanging in there. Not only that, but Rep. Ron Paul thumped two reputed Republican heavyweights in the Michigan primary — former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Update: Justin Raimondo answers objections.
The internet monk has recently stopped supporting Dr. Ron Paul. Why? Because of the release of the many newsletters written under Paul’s name, which include strong language against blacks, homosexuals, etc. In light of Michael’s disassociation, I would like to make a few observations:
a) I respect Michael Spencer (internet monk). He is a good man who has done some great things for the gospel. I even subscribe to his podcast. His ministry of teaching and aiding the poor is honorable.
b) His reasons for disassociating from Dr. Paul are extremely personal. That is, Internet monk works with Blacks, Hispanics, Koreans, etc. Hence, anything that bears an association with racism will be offensive to Mr. Spencer on a personal level. Mr. Spencer has every right to be weary. It is true that Ron Paul was at one time (maybe 20 years ago) associated with some people who spoke out against welfarism and made some remarks that would deem to be racist. I am sure I associated myself with people who held to radically different ideas contrary to mine, but does that mean I am to be held accountable, even if they speak on my behalf? This would be a great opportunity for Mr. Spencer to teach his students that what people say does not always represent accurately what someone else believes.
c) It is true that some of the remarks were a bit too severe, but were they all false?
d) The President of the NAACP in Austin, Texas said that Ron Paul could never be a racist. Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.
e) Though these newsletters were printed in Ron Paul’s name, Paul cannot keep up with all things at the same time nor can he edit everything. At that particular time Dr. Paul was practicing medicine, delivering babies ( a lot of black babies I must add), and doing other things, there were seven newsletters being printed under his name. He could not monitor everything while doing all that he was doing at the time. Paul has already apologized in the last 15 years for not being stricter on the writers of the newsletters. This is not the first time people are making this accusation.
f) Most importantly, those who wrote those letters could not be true libertarians, because libertarians do not see things in collectivist terms, rather they see people as individuals. Libertarians do not see groups of black and groups of white, rather they see individual people with unique God-given rights.
h) In the end, it is Ron Paul’s policies that matter not what someone wrote using his name 20 years ago. The truth is: to make Dr. Paul a racist would require someone to re-write all his policies. Paul is actually the only one who speaks about abolishing the unnecessary drug laws which discriminates against blacks.
Perhaps Mr. Spencer needs to re-consider his disassociation.
Today it is usual to assume that the government owns all that we produce, and through government generosity we are permitted to retain a certain portion. We routinely hear that if a particular tax is reduced, it will be a “cost” to government. This concept must be changed if the idea of individual liberty is to survive. There is no such thing as cost to government. There is only cost to people. Government cannot grant to us our right to life
and liberty, it would mean that government controls all that we produce. Sadly this is essentially the situation in which we find ourselves today.–pg. 16
We all naively and obediently become tax collectors for the government, turning over the loot that the politicians will waste as they further destroy our right to live as we choose.–pg. 16
Americans today have more people living on the street than ever before, in spite of the hundreds of billions of dollars spent to eradicate poverty. Of course, logic tells us that if you subsidize poverty, you’ll get more of it.–pg.18
Until it’s respectable once again to champion individual rights and government, we cannot expect to reverse the trend in which we as Americans find ourselves.–pg. 18
Piper summarizes some of his main concerns with Wright’s theology. Among them, is Wright’s affirmation that the gospel is not about how to get saved (18). Wright affirms that the gospel “refers to the proclamation that Jesus, the crucified and risen Messiah , is the one, true and only Lord of the world” (18). Piper has no problem affirming this definition of the gospel, nevertheless he finds it troublesome that Wright would deny that the gospel is not about how one gets saved. Wright believes that the gospel is a cosmic proclamation of the lordship of Christ over all political systems and earthly authority.
Wright’s proposition that the gospel is about a cosmic proclamation corrects much of the dualistic thinking in the evangelical world. The Lordship of Christ is a comprehensive and authoritative claim over all mankind. At the same time, by refusing to extend this lordship to the question What must I do to be saved seems rather minimalistic. The gospel is both authoritative– bringing earthly rulers under the authority of Messiah and salvific–and it answers the question what must I do to be saved with a definitive call to embrace Messiah as Lord and you shall be saved (I Corinthians 15:1-2).
One of the most captivating lectures at the Auburn Avenue Conference came from Pastor Douglas Wilson. Wilson entitled his talk: Against Liturgy. This was a play on Leithart’s classic: Against Christianity. In his book, Leithart is opposing the “ism” of Christianity, not Christianity itself. Wilson’s argument against Liturgy was an argument of caution. He noted that many have pursued liturgical reform to the detriment of other elements of worship. Some in the Anglo/Catholic tradition have emphasized liturgical structures so much that they have lost sight of the preached word. The Biblical proclamation is nothing but an added footnote to the worship service. In this case, we are to be against liturgy.
By: Nicole Belle on Saturday, January 12th, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Download (1110) | Play (1452) 
Download (823) | Play (894) (h/t Heather)
At the FOX GOP snoozefest…er, debate, interesting moments were few and far between. But this moment does clarify exactly how disinterested the Republican party is on substantive discussion as opposed to mindless fear-mongering.
When Ron Paul points out that the whole trumped up Iranian speedboat threat in the Straits of Hormuz has a whole Gulf of Tonkin smell to it and that we need to be careful before posturing aggressively over a non-existent threat.
And Mitt Romney’s reply?
I think Congresman Paul should not be reading as many of Ahmadinejad’s press releases.
Nice. Why let pesky little things like facts get in the way, right, Mitt? Even though the Navy is backing down and saying the speedboats posed no threat and there’s some question as to the voice on the recording, let’s not stop fearmongering ourselves into a huge conflict with Iran too–all our dealings in the Middle East have worked out so well, haven’t they?
(h/t The Aristocrats)
Beck is seeing the light more and more…who wouldn’t in light of the economic tsunami coming ahead.
One of the profound pastoral advices from the Auburn Avenue Conference came from Pastor Jeff Meyers. Jeff argued from experience and exegesis that liturgical reformation will not occur overnight. Pastors need to be patient with their people. They need to understand their people’s past liturgical experiences, their concerns, and their expectations. Hence, knowing your people is the first step to liturgical renewal.
I have just returned from Monroe, Louisiana. We drove 13 hours through some of the most beautiful southern sceneries. It was a long, but pleasant drive. At our arrival, we were greeted by our kind hosts. They were members of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church. I have never been so kindly treated. I must say that southern kindness came through quite well. My many thanks to all who were so kind to me.
The Conference was a magnificent display of humor, scholarly discourse, a little more humor, and a lot of pastoral advice. Pastor Jeff Meyers delivered two lectures on his experiences as a pastor and how ministers ought to be patient with their congregations in order to achieve liturgical reformation. Pastor Douglas Wilson urged us to pursue liturgical reformation, but never at the expense of diminishing the importance of the preached Word. Pastor Peter Leithart spoke three times on the use of liturgical language in the Old and New Covenant. His talks with filled with theological gems. James Jordan spoke once –to the delight of most participants– who have learned from Jordan to sing the Psalms with fervor and triumph.
One of my greatest joys was to look around and see many young people singing with such enthusiasm and passion. The Psalms were part of who they were. The hymns were an extension of their vast liturgical knowledge.
Another great delight of the conference was meeting two of my favorite bloggers: Barbara Harvey who exemplifies class and kindness and Steven Wedgeworth whose knowledge has kept him alive at the RTS Jackson campus. It was great meeting both of you in person and I pray to see you again in the coming years.
After attending this conference I have a much better grasp as to why people continually attack these men: They attack them because they do not know them.
Recent Comments