Wealth Redistribution, Socialism, Hypocrisy and Campaign Bull

I have been writing commentary and responses to the negative YouTube videos I have been sent about Obama's tax plans. Most of the videos out on this have the comments either cut off or moderated pending approval. This is kind of funny when the videos are going off about someone (Biden) being asked and supposedly tough questions and supposedly dodging them.

I thought Biden's answers were good. I suspect that most people were not even listening to the answers- instead simply enjoying seeing the "tough" questions that they are hung up on being asked and then Biden being miffed about it. They don't seem to realize that Biden was the victor and beneficiary of that exchange. I realize that this is a highly subjective issue. People see what they want to see.

Here is what I see.

First, when Bush wanted to implement his tax cuts for the wealthier American citizens and businesses, McCain opposed it and voted NO (neaux).
McCain said it would hurt the middle class and the less fortunate. Go check the voting records.

Now that Obama seeks to essentially roll those tax cuts back and instead give them to the middle class and less fortunate (ironically, like Joe the plumber) suddenly Obama is a commie according to the incoherent, inconsistent, irrational, insult to the intelligence McCain- Palin campaign and right wing America. Whatever. It doesn't wash.

Secondly,

AMENDMENT XVI

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever sources derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. The income tax is collected yearly on a percentage basis. The higher the earnings, the higher the percentage collected from them. This changes article 1 section 2.

So, we have had a progressive income tax in America for many years. That's the way its been done for a couple of lifetimes- so this charge of socialism and the evils of wealth redistribution and revolutionary radicalism against Obama regarding taxation doesn't really sound so apocalyptic after all. Anybody that believes Obama is a total communist obviously has not really read the Communist Manifesto. The best one can come up with is a few quotes by Karl Marx that seem to parallel some quotes by Obama. I can produce quotes from any American leader in the last 200 plus years that parallel ideas by any other notorious dictator from Saddam to Stalin to Hitler. So what.

For the record... communism, capitalism.... whatever... they are both worldly systems flawed by fallible humanity and self interests and vested interests and neither really more or less evil than the other. I have seen no convincing evidence that God is a capitalist. In fact, as C.S. Lewis observes, one may find within the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, concepts that in todays world would absolutely be considered Utopian, overly idealistic, unrealistic, leftist and possibly even communist. Now get this straight, I am neither capitalist or communist- both systems are worldly and ultimately doomed to failure by human factors... not to mention the natural cycles of history and/or God's intervention and plan for human history. So, ultimately this whole subject is something that I am scarcely interested in and only commenting on to challenge others to think outside the box.

Now, as far as all this hullabaloo about wealth redistribution people seem to have forgotten what Sarah Palin did in Alaska:

Palin’s criticisms of Obama’s “spread the wealth” remarks are ironic to put it nicely and plain old campaign Bull in the street vernacular. She recently characterized Alaska’s tax code in a very similar way. Just last month, in an interview with Philip Gourevitch of the New Yorker, Palin explained the windfall profits tax that she imposed on the oil industry in Alaska as a mechanism for ensuring that Alaskans “share in the wealth” generated by oil companies:

And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. … It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans.

In fact, Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share (ACES) program, which manages the redistribution of oil wealth in Alaska, brings in so much money that the state needs no income or sales tax. In addition, this year ACES will provide every Alaskan with a check for an estimated $3,200.

Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it…

Perhaps the McCain- Palin ticket sees some important distinction between what Obama is talking about and what Palin has done to redistribute wealth in Alaska that I am missing it and I need a far greater intellect to tell the difference. However, I submit that it is at least possible that McCain and Palin are simply trying to win a campaign and are in fact self contradictory- and that seeing that only requires the analytic skills of say... a sincere fifth grader with a speck of curiosity, objectivity or self critical analysis.

My Priorites for the 2008 Election

I recently read an article by Jim Wallis of Sojourners magazine entitled "My Personal 'Faith Priorities' for this Election". I agree with his priorities as listed which are as follows.

"I am in no position to tell anyone what is "non-negotiable," and neither is any bishop or megachurch pastor, but let me tell you the "faith priorities" and values I will be voting on this year:

1. With more than 2,000 verses in the Bible about how we treat the poor and oppressed, I will examine the record, plans, policies, and promises made by the candidates on what they will do to overcome the scandal of extreme global poverty and the shame of such unnecessary domestic poverty in the richest nation in the world. Such a central theme of the Bible simply cannot be ignored at election time, as too many Christians have done for years. And any solution to the economic crisis that simply bails out the rich, and even the middle class, but ignores those at the bottom should simply be unacceptable to people of faith.



2. From the biblical prophets to Jesus, there is, at least, a biblical presumption against war and the hope of beating our swords into instruments of peace. So I will choose the candidates who will be least likely to lead us into more disastrous wars and find better ways to resolve the inevitable conflicts in the world and make us all safer. I will choose the candidates who seem to best understand that our security depends upon other people’s security (everyone having "their own vine and fig tree, so no one can make them afraid," as the prophets say) more than upon how high we can build walls or a stockpile of weapons. Christians should never expect a pacifist president, but we can insist on one who views military force only as a very last resort, when all other diplomatic and economic measures have failed, and never as a preferred or habitual response to conflict.



3. "Choosing life" is a constant biblical theme, so I will choose candidates who have the most consistent ethic of life, addressing all the threats to human life and dignity that we face — not just one. Thirty-thousand children dying globally each day of preventable hunger and disease is a life issue. The genocide in Darfur is a life issue. Health care is a life issue. War is a life issue. The death penalty is a life issue. And on abortion, I will choose candidates who have the best chance to pursue the practical and proven policies which could dramatically reduce the number of abortions in America and therefore save precious unborn lives, rather than those who simply repeat the polarized legal debates and "pro-choice" and "pro-life" mantras from either side.



4. God’s fragile creation is clearly under assault, and I will choose the candidates who will likely be most faithful in our care of the environment. In particular, I will choose the candidates who will most clearly take on the growing threat of climate change, and who have the strongest commitment to the conversion of our economy and way of life to a cleaner, safer, and more renewable energy future. And that choice could accomplish other key moral priorities like the redemption of a dangerous foreign policy built on Middle East oil dependence, and the great prospects of job creation and economic renewal from a new "green" economy built on more spiritual values of conservation, stewardship, sustainability, respect, responsibility, co-dependence, modesty, and even humility.



5. Every human being is made in the image of God, so I will choose the candidates who are most likely to protect human rights and human dignity. Sexual and economic slavery is on the rise around the world, and an end to human trafficking must become a top priority. As many religious leaders have now said, torture is completely morally unacceptable, under any circumstances, and I will choose the candidates who are most committed to reversing American policy on the treatment of prisoners. And I will choose the candidates who understand that the immigration system is totally broken and needs comprehensive reform, but must be changed in ways that are compassionate, fair, just, and consistent with the biblical command to "welcome the stranger."



6. Healthy families are the foundation of our community life, and nothing is more important than how we are raising up the next generation. As the father of two young boys, I am deeply concerned about the values our leaders model in the midst of the cultural degeneracy assaulting our children. Which candidates will best exemplify and articulate strong family values, using the White House and other offices as bully pulpits to speak of sexual restraint and integrity, marital fidelity, strong parenting, and putting family values over economic values? And I will choose the candidates who promise to really deal with the enormous economic and cultural pressures that have made parenting such a "countercultural activity" in America today, rather than those who merely scapegoat gay people for the serious problems of heterosexual family breakdown.

That is my list of personal "faith priorities" for the election year of 2008, but they are not "non-negotiables" for anyone else. It’s time for each of us to make up our own list in these next 12 days. Make your list and send this on to your friends and family members, inviting them to do the same thing."

Ron Paul, The Only Candidate My Conscience Would Have Allowed Me To Vote For, On Abortion

Ron Paul on Abortion

Republican Representative (TX-14); previously Libertarian for President

Abortion is murder

A popular academic argument for abortion demands that we think of the child in the womb as a parasite.but the same argument justifies infanticide, since it applies just as well to an infant outside the womb.newborns require even more attention & care.

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.

Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 59-60 Apr 1, 2008

Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution

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 rule in accordance with the Constitution, Americans do have some legislative recourse. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over a broad categories of cases. Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 60 Apr 1, 2008

Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement

On the right-to-life issue, I believe, I'm a real stickler for civil liberties. It's academic to talk about civil liberties if you don't talk about the true protection of all life. So if you are going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well.

I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception. And someone says, 'oh why are you saying that?' and I say, 'well, that's not a political statement -- that's a scientific statement that I'm making!"

I know we're all interested in a better court system and amending the constitution to protect life. But sometimes I think that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker, and my bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion, if a state law says no abortion, it doesn't go to the supreme court to be ruled out of order

Source: Speeches to 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference Feb 7, 2008

Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty

Liberty is the most important thing, because if we have our liberties, we have our freedoms, we can have our lives. But it's academic to talk about civil liberties if you don't talk about the true protection of all life. So if you're going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well. I have a bill in Congress which I would certainly promote and push as President. But it's been ignored by the right-to-life community. My bill is called the Sanctity of Life bill. What it would do is it would establish the principle that life begins at conception. That's not a political statement, but a scientific statement that I'm making. We're all interested in a better court system, and amending the Constitution to protect life--but sometimes that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker. My bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion. If a state law says "no abortion," it doesn't go to the Supreme Court to be ruled out of order. Source: Speeches to 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference Feb 7, 2008

Get the federal government out of abortion decision

Q: If abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?

A: The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don't need a federal abortion police. That's the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that's committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don't think that should be up to the president to decide.

Source: 2007 GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida Nov 28, 2007

Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception

Q: What will you do to restore legal protection to the unborn?

A: As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there's a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there's an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction

I'm surprised that I don't have more co-sponsors for my Sanctity of Life Act. It removes the jurisdiction from the federal courts & allows the states to pass protection to the unborn. Instead of waiting years for a Constitutional Amendment, this would happen immediately, by majority vote in the Congress and a president's signature. It's a much easier way to accomplish this, by following what our Constitution directs us. Instead of new laws, let's just use what we have & pass this type of legislation. Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench

Q: Will you nominate only judges who are demonstrably faithful to the judicial role of following only the text of the Constitution, and who not only refuse to legislate from the bench, but are committed to reversing prior court decision where activist judges strayed from the judicial role and legislated from the bench?

• HUCKABEE: Yes.
• TANCREDO: Yes.
• COX: Yes.
• BROWNBACK: Yes.
• PAUL: Yes.
• HUNTER: Yes.
• KEYES: Yes.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

Save "snowflake babies": no experiments on frozen embryos

Q: Our children were adopted as embryos. They were snowflake babies, which means that for the first part of their lives, they were frozen embryos. Can you look at them now and honestly tell me that it would be OK with you if someone used them in medical experiments and snuffed out their little lives? Is that your position?

• HUCKABEE: No.
• TANCREDO: No.
• COX: No.
• BROWNBACK: No.
• PAUL: No.
• HUNTER: No.
• KEYES: No.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion

Q: The Mexico City Policy states that as a condition for a foreign organization to receive federal funds, they will neither "perform nor actively promote abortion." Would you work to apply this Mexico City policy to organizations within the US?

HUCKABEE: Are we being asked to apply a Mexican law to the US?

Q: It's the principle of not giving our tax dollars to organizations within our country that actively promote or provide abortions. It's an American law.

BROWNBACK: This is Ronald Reagan' policy that we wouldn't use federal funds to support organizations that promote abortions overseas.

HUNTER: It's actually a UN policy.

KEYES: Actually, it was a policy of the Mexico City Population Conference. I was the deputy chairman. I actually negotiated the language into the final resolution at that conference.

Q: I want to know, will you defund Planned Parenthood?

• HUCKABEE: Yes.
• TANCREDO: Yes.
• COX: Yes.
• BROWNBACK: Yes.
• PAUL: Yes.
• HUNTER: Yes.
• KEYES: Yes.

Source: [Xref Keyes] 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized

Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?

A: Programs like this are not authorized under the Constitution. The trouble with issues like this is, in Washington we either prohibit it or subsidize it. And the market should deal with it, and the states should deal with it.

Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.

Allows federal funding for research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, provided such embryos:

1. have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics;
2. were created for the purposes of fertility treatment;
3. were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would otherwise be discarded; and
4. were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Since 2 years ago, the last Stem Cell bill, public support has surged for stem cells. Research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the US. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use. I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we should foster all of these methods, and we should adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell research.

Opponents support voting NO because:

A good deal has changed in the world of science. Amniotic fluid stem cells are now available to open a broad new area of research. I think the American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate.

The recent findings of the pluripotent epithelial cells demonstrates how quickly the world has changed. Wouldn't it be nice to have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American people?

Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill HR 3 ("First 100 hours") ; vote number 2007-020 on Jan 11, 2007

Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.

To provide for human embryonic stem cell research. A YES vote would:

• Call for stem cells to be taken from human embryos that were donated from in vitro fertilization clinics
• Require that before the embryos are donated, that it be established that they were created for fertility treatment and in excess of clinical need and otherwise would be discarded
• Stipulate that those donating the embryos give written consent and do not receive any compensation for the donation.

Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill HR 810 ; vote number 2005-204 on May 24, 2005

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.

To prevent the transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws relating to abortion, and for other purposes, including:

• Allowing for exemptions to the law if the life of the minor is in danger or if a court in the minor's home state waive the parental notification required by that state
• Allocating fines and/or up to one year imprisonment of those convicted of transporting a minor over state lines to have an abortion
• Penalizing doctors who knowingly perform an abortion procedure without obtaining reasonable proof that the notification provisions of the minor's home state have been satisfied
• Requiring abortion providers in states that do not have parental consent laws and who would be performing the procedure on a minor that resides in another state, to give at least a 24 hour notice to the parent or legal guardian
• Specifying that neither the minor nor her guardians may be prosecuted or sued for a violation of this act

Reference: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; Bill HR 748 ; vote number 2005-144 on Apr 27, 2005

Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime.

Vote to pass a bill that would make it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime. The measure would set criminal penalties, the same as those that would apply if harm or death happened to the pregnant woman, for those who harm a fetus. It is not required that the individual have prior knowledge of the pregnancy or intent to harm the fetus. This bill prohibits the death penalty from being imposed for such an offense. The bill states that its provisions should not be interpreted to apply a woman's actions with respect to her pregnancy. Reference: Unborn Victims of Violence Act; Bill HR 1997 ; vote number 2004-31 on Feb 26, 2004

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. The procedure would be allowed only in cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger. Those who performed this procedure, would face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable. Reference: Bill sponsored by Santorum, R-PA; Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-530 on Oct 2, 2003

Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.

Vote to pass a bill that would forbid human cloning and punish violators with up to 10 years in prison and fines of at least $1 million. The bill would ban human cloning, and any attempts at human cloning, for both reproductive purposes and medical research. Also forbidden is the importing of cloned embryos or products made from them. Reference: Human Cloning Prohibition Act; Bill HR 534 ; vote number 2003-39 on Feb 27, 2003

Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info.

Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002: Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit the federal, state and local governments that receive federal funding from discriminating against health care providers, health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and any other kind of health care facility, organization or plan, that decline to refer patients for, pay for or provide abortion services. In addition the bill would expand an existing law "conscience clause" that protects physician training programs that refuse to provide training for abortion procedures. Reference: Bill sponsored by Bilirakis, R-FL; Bill HR 4691 ; vote number 2002-412 on Sep 25, 2002

Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.

Vote to adopt an amendment that would remove language reversing President Bush's restrictions on funding to family planning groups that provide abortion services, counseling or advocacy. Reference: Amendment sponsored by Hyde, R-IL; Bill HR 1646 ; vote number 2001-115 on May 16, 2001

Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes.

Vote to pass a bill that would make it a federal crime to harm a fetus while committing any of 68 federal offenses or a crime under military law. Abortion doctors and women whose own actions harmed their fetuses would be exempt. Reference: Bill sponsored by Graham, R-SC; Bill HR 503 ; vote number 2001-89 on Apr 26, 2001

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions.

HR 3660 would ban doctors from performing the abortion procedure called "dilation and extraction" [also known as “partial-birth” abortion]. The measure would allow the procedure only if the life of the woman is at risk. Reference: Bill sponsored by Canady, R-FL; Bill HR 3660 ; vote number 2000-104 on Apr 5, 2000

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.

The Child Custody Protection Act makes it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. Reference: Bill sponsored by Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL; Bill HR 1218 ; vote number 1999-261 on Jun 30, 1999

No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life.

Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:

Q: What is the RLC’s position on abortion?

A: Neutral. We have both pro-lifers to pro-choicers, and in between. As far as libertarian groups go, you’ll find that we are probably the most tolerant of the pro-life viewpoint. Our immediate past chairman, Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX, 14th Dist.) is very pro-life. Many other members are pro-choice. As libertarians, we oppose Federal funding of abortion under any circumstances. It is not a litmus test, and it is not an issue that is often debated internally. However, the California RLC website www.LibertyCaucus.org, has sponsored a debate on the issue between two prominent members.

Source: Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement 00-RLC14 on Dec 8, 2000

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.

Paul scores 0% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record

For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Source: NARAL website 03n-NARAL on Dec 31, 2003

Rated 56% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion.

Paul scores 56% by the NRLC on abortion issues

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:

• 0% - 15%: pro-choice stance (approx. 174 members)
• 16%- 84%: mixed record on abortion (approx. 101 members)
• 85%-100%: pro-life stance (approx. 190 members)

About the NRLC (from their website, www.nrlc.org):

The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense. The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1973 in response to the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, legalizing the practice of human abortion in all 50 states, throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.

The NRLC has been instrumental in achieving a number of legislative reforms at the national level, including a ban on non-therapeutic experimentation of unborn and newborn babies, a federal conscience clause guaranteeing medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortion procedures, and various amendments to appropriations bills which prohibit (or limit) the use of federal funds to subsidize or promote abortions in the United States and overseas.

In addition to maintaining a lobbying presence at the federal level, NRLC serves as a clearinghouse of information for its state affiliates and local chapters, its individual members, the press, and the public.

Source: NRLC website 06n-NRLC on Dec 31, 2006

Click here for definitions & background information on Abortion. Click here for policy papers on Abortion. Click here for a profile of Ron Paul. Click here for Ron Paul on all the issues. Click here for VoteMatch responses by Ron Paul. Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Abortion or about Ron Paul in The Forum.
Other candidates on Abortion:	Ron Paul on other issues:
Frontrunners: GOP: Sen.John McCain Democrat: Sen.Hillary Clinton Democrat: Sen.Barack Obama GOP V.P. Possibilities: Gov.Haley Barbour(MS) Gov.Charlie Crist(FL) Mayor Rudy Giuliani(NYC) Gov.Mike Huckabee(AR) Sen.Joe Lieberman(CT) Gov.Tim Pawlenty(MN) Gov.Mitt Romney(MA) Gov.Mark Sanford(SC) Third Parties: Constitution: Chuck Baldwin Libertarian: Rep.Bob Barr Libertarian: Sen.Mike Gravel Constitution: Amb.Alan Keyes Liberation: Gloria La Riva Green: Rep.Cynthia McKinney Socialist: Brian Moore Independent: Ralph Nader Libertarian: Rep.Ron Paul	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families/Children Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Infrastructure/Technology Jobs Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty

Doers of the Word

Images of Christ

Doers of the Word

August 3

James 1:17–27

Lesson Aims

After participating in this lesson, each student will be able to:

1. Summarize James’s teaching on hearing and doing and on making one’s religion real.

2. Explain how God’s Word should lead to active discipleship.

3. Make a plan to correct one area of life in which he or she needs to move from being a mere hearer to being a doer.

Key Verse: Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.—James 1:22

Intro: James, the author of today’s Bible text, undoubtedly thought that Bible study, fellowship, etc., were good things. But his issue was that of ensuring that Bible knowledge was put into practice. His concern was for knowing the Word of God in a way that would enable a Christian to do the will of God. And being a doer goes far beyond pleasant fellowship with other Christians. Sometimes I have heard people say of church on Sunday morning, “I think of church as a filling station. I come here empty, and during the service I get filled so I can make it through he week.” The problem with this approach is that this is passive, receptive, not active. It makes church into a place where we come, sit back and say, “OK preacher, ok songleader and prayer leaders- do it to me, fill me up.”
However, the test for good worship, the mark of a good church is not what we do here, during the hours of worship and Bible class; it’s what we do outside those doors for the rest of the week. Yet here, as elsewhere, after all is said and done, more is said than done.
The world is quite right in judging the truth of the gospel on the basis of the sort of lives the gospel is able to produce. Do we really look like the God whom we praise here on Sunday morning? Have our songs and prayers changed us, made us into that which we profess? That is the test, says James.

Lesson Background

The epistle of James was written by James, the brother of Jesus (Galatians 1:19; 2:9). James did not believe Jesus to be the Christ until after Jesus’ resurrection (John 7:5; 1 Corinthians 15:7). James was present with those gathered just before the Day of

Pentecost (Acts 1:14). By the time of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, James had emerged as one of the principal leaders of the church. James was noteworthy enough for the historian Josephus to record his murder, which happened in about ad 62.

The epistle of James is his only work in the New Testament. Unlike books from Paul, which often are concerned about the place of Gentiles in the church, James writes primarily to Jewish Christians. They were in a tough situation (James 1:1–3). Some even had fled Jerusalem following the persecution by Herod Agrippa that occurred in the time period of Stephen’s stoning and the execution of James, the son of Zebedee (Acts 11:19–12:2).

AMPLIFIED VERSION James 1:17-27

In the verses preceding those for this lesson (James 1:1–16), James challenges believers to have the kind of mature faith that can stand up to life’s disasters and disappointments. He seems worried about their eternal future. He is concerned that many Christians believe—wrongly—that God is tempting them when the opposite is true (1:13). God wants all believers to succeed! In fact, rather than throwing hazards at us, he continually strews our paths with gifts to encourage us as we go.

17 Every good gift and every perfect (^[a]free, large, full) gift is from above; it comes down from the Father of all [that gives] light, in [the shining of] Whom there can be no variation [rising or setting] or shadow cast by His turning [as in an eclipse].
18 And it was of His own [free] will that He gave us birth [as sons] by [His] Word of Truth, so that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures [a sample of what He created to be consecrated to Himself].
19 Understand [this], my beloved brethren. Let every man be quick to hear [a ready listener], slow to speak, slow to take offense and to get angry.
20 For man's anger does not promote the righteousness God [wishes and requires].
21 So get rid of all uncleanness and the rampant outgrowth of wickedness, and in a humble (gentle, modest) spirit receive and welcome the Word which implanted and rooted [in your hearts] contains the power to save your souls.
22 But be doers of the Word [obey the message], and not merely listeners to it, betraying yourselves [into deception by reasoning contrary to the Truth].
23 For if anyone only listens to the Word without obeying it and being a doer of it, he is like a man who looks carefully at his [own] natural face in a mirror;
24 For he thoughtfully observes himself, and then goes off and promptly forgets what he was like.
25 But he who looks carefully into the faultless law, the [law] of liberty, and is faithful to it and perseveres in looking into it, being not a heedless listener who forgets but an active doer [who obeys], he shall be blessed in his doing (his life of obedience).
26 If anyone thinks himself to be religious (piously observant of the external duties of his faith) and does not bridle his tongue but deludes his own heart, this person's religious service is worthless (futile, barren).
27 External ^[b]religious worship [^[c]religion as it is expressed in outward acts] that is pure and unblemished in the sight of God the Father is this: to visit and help and care for the orphans and widows in their affliction and need, and to keep oneself unspotted and uncontaminated from the world.

I. Gifts from God (James 1:17, 18)

A. The Best Gifts (v. 17)

17 Every good gift and every perfect (^[a]free, large, full) gift is from above; it comes down from the Father of all [that gives] light, in [the shining of ] Whom there can be no variation [rising or setting] or shadow cast by His turning [as in an eclipse].

James describes God in three ways: as the one from above, as the Father of the heavenly lights, and as the one who does not change like shifting shadows.

God’s character is like a sun that never sets and that has nothing to block its light. With God, it is always high noon. With this correct understanding of God, it is easy to grasp the idea that he wants only the best for us in life.

What Do You Think? Every good thing is from God! Given this fact, what should you thank him for at this very moment?

James used images of lights and shadows to make his point: with God there is no change. We sinful mortals shift constantly—in our morals, our actions, our priorities, our physical locations, and our attitudes. It is convenient—even vital—to have a point of reference that never changes.

B. The Eternal Gift (v. 18)

18 And it was of His own [free] will that He gave us birth [as sons] by [His] Word of Truth, so that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures [a sample of what He created to be consecrated to Himself].

As in verse 17 above, this verse first draws on creation ideas from Genesis. The creation of humankind by God’s word is implied as the absolute best result of all his creation activities.

This passage uses its language as a stepping-stone to talk about God’s perfect gift: the word of truth. This word gives birth to life of a different order: eternal life.

This birth takes place at the spiritual level and is propelled by a specific word, the message of the gospel. Christians are the firstfruits of humanity. This is apparent because (1) the we and us refer to believers, (2) becoming a Christian is commonly referred to as birth in the New Testament (John 3:3; 1 Peter 1:3), and (3) word of truth refers to the gospel (see also Ephesians 1:13).

II. Lessons from a Proverb (James 1:19–27)

A. 19 Understand [this], my beloved brethren. Let every man be quick to hear [a ready listener], slow to speak, slow to take offense and to get angry.

Proverbs are carefully crafted, memorable sayings. This one not only provides a keen perception about the relationship between listening and outbursts of anger, it also provides the framework for the immediate verses that follow. Verses 20, 21 expand on the third part of the proverb, verses 22–25 on the first, and verse 26 on the second. Not only that, The three parts of verse 19 introduce the broad concerns of the entire book of James: correctly hearing the word (chapter 2), the difficulty of controlling the tongue (chapter 3), and the damaging effect angry speech has on the church (chapter 4).

The primary observation of this proverb is that careful attention to what someone else is saying is the gateway to disciplining one’s own talk. Then disciplining one’s own talk leads to breaking the bad habit of angry, uncontrolled, emotion-laden outbursts. Though every human being occasionally speaks like this, control of this human weakness is a virtue.

Controlling the tongue or in today’s language “watching your mouth” is rather obviously a major concern in the Bible- (The Word of God)- great admonitions are given throughout the Bible about “watching your mouth” and great blessings are promised for those that are meek, humble and self controlled in speech.

How would you explain this principle to another person- for instance someone you were “witnessing’ to?

The best explanation I can find to this occurs in Luke chapter 6:

A Tree and Its Fruit

43 "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44 Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. 45 The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.

So, according to Jesus, it’s very simple really- what is stored in your heart is what tends to come out of your mouth…. If you cannot control your mouth then you are lacking in humility and lacking in real, mature faith in God… we’ll get to more about the connection between humility and faith a little later.

Sometimes the ways that we defy God’s word and are NOT quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to take offense and get angry are easily overlooked. I find this especially true in today’s socio-political milieu. If you don’t think so- go to your place of work tomorrow and start up a conversation about who should be the next president or what should be done about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, how to bring about a lasting peace in the Mideast, abortion, gay rights, gas prices, the environment, school prayer, taxes, race or whatever the issue of the day is- and then try to be humble and meek especially when you start drawing fire. The lesson plan has a good example of how insidious and easy it is to defy the teaching to be a good, even tempered listener instead of a brash, self righteous motormouth, listen:

Rash Speech

When I was a freshman in college, I had not yet learned some of the subtleties of interpersonal communication. On one occasion I asked a fellow student a question about a rather controversial situation. When she began to explain her view on the issue, I immediately realized her opinion was different from mine. So I jumped in, arguing with her. She let me rattle on for a couple of minutes, then she softly observed, “I thought you were asking for my opinion; I didn’t realize you just wanted to argue.”

I was abashed, but she was right. It was obvious I really didn’t care for her opinion; I just wanted to present my own and argue against hers. I learned over the process of time that she was a thoughtful person, quite bright about a lot of things. But at the time I was a presumptuous freshman, more interested in arguing than in intelligent discussion.

Does that seem familiar to any of you? Do you ever find yourself really just waiting for your turn to talk rather than really listening? Is this a matter of etiquette or do you actually care what the other person thinks?

When we are listening to others, what should we be listening for?

B. Controlling Anger (vv. 20, 21)

20 For man's anger does not promote the righteousness God [wishes and requires].

The word anger in other contexts can refer to the emotional feelings people have when they are upset. But here it represents the unregulated, hurtful words people shout at others when they are angry. This type of behavior is unacceptable to God. Angry words that aim to do harm are always wrong. They are vindictive. However, the emotion of anger itself is in many ways a natural, human way of coping with stressful, unfair things that happen to us in our lives. God himself gets angry (see Zechariah 10:3; Mark 3:5).

The human virtue that is crucial to pleasing God is control. How a person deals with his or her anger is the difference between righteous and unrighteous character. A person can use anger as the impetus to solving problems in productive ways. Mean-spirited, emotional outbursts are not helpful to these ends and are therefore displeasing to God.

What Do You Think?

What situations present the greatest danger for you to speak out inappropriately? What tips have you found helpful for keeping your tongue in check?

21 So get rid of all uncleanness ( filth) and the rampant outgrowth of wickedness, and in a humble (gentle, modest) spirit receive and welcome the Word which implanted and rooted [in your hearts] contains the power to save your souls.

An uncontrolled display of angry words is only one of many unrighteous—and therefore unacceptable—things that people do Rather than continue to allow unrighteous behavior (such as angry speech) to dominate our behavior, we are to cultivate the word we were given when we believed. That precious gift is the word of truth (1:18, above), the gospel.

To be humble or meek means to accept what God ordains or commands and to seek help and or guidance from Him rather than trusting in one’s own intelligence or abilities. This does not mean a passive tolerance of injustice (especially towards others), but a reliance on God for vindication and a refusal to retaliate when insulted. The humble and/or meek person is convinced that God’s ways are good, so he neither disputes nor resists what God sends. The humble person does not have a low opinion of themselves- they are not occupied with self at all. Because they trust God’s goodness and control over situations, the meek person does not have to worry about their self interests or about self preservation or self improvement. Jesus’ meekness did not conflict with his courage, his concern for justice or his confidence that through his unity with God that he was competent to do his job.

What Do You Think?

How can an attitude of humility help keep our tempers in check?

Humility, easily overlooked in verse 21, is a key component for generating the kind of Christian lives that James demands. Certainly, its opposite (namely, arrogance) cannot be present when a person first accepts the gospel, repents of sin, and fully relies on the graciousness of God. Arrogance also impedes the growth of that gospel seed implanted in our lives. Full reliance on God for strength to overcome our unrighteous character is the only way we can become the excellent kind of people God desires. Clearly, the believers James writes to have accepted the implanted word, but they have dampened its growth by their pride. This stands as a warning to us not to do the same.

Matthew 11:29, 30 says “29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”-…

…but, it sure doesn’t seem so easy to control our emotions our tongue does it? Why do you think that is/? I have an answer for that…

A lot of it is cultural… we live in a culture that glorifies individualism, tough, brutal pragmatism… our heroes are not the meek and/or humble … they are people like Rambo, Batman, Clint Eastwood in his tough guy roles, the celebrities with the most bling, the slickest politicians, the “tell it like it is” news commentators that will let people have it and tell them to shut their mouths when they feel its necessary, The gladiators, the guys with the biggest guns and/or the hardest boiled attitudes… all this is the culture of the World, not the Kingdom of God that Jesus spoke about… the World’s value system is based on domination… Look, all this is something that is not just sort of spiritually problematic… The teachings of Christ and the new Testament authors show clearly that this Worldly value system is a SOUL CRUSHING DISEASE.

C. Hearing God’s Word (vv. 22–25)

22 But be doers of the Word [obey the message], and not merely listeners to it, betraying yourselves [into deception by reasoning contrary to the Truth].

The interest now turns to spiritual matters. The word mentioned here is still the “word of truth,” the gospel planted by God as the eternal gift taking root in the lives of believers.

As most evident in children, there is a big difference between merely hearing and really listening. Poor listening (in terms of “in one ear and out the other”) decreases our ability to perform well. Yet we are to be excellent listeners, focusing intently on what God is saying to us through his gospel, which is now a permanent part of our lives. If we listen well, we will perform well. Our lives will demonstrate the righteous character that pleases God. We will do what the word says (compare Matthew 7:26).

What Do You Think?

Have you ever listened to a sermon and thought to yourself, “This is exactly what so-and-so needs to hear”? How can we focus on letting God’s Word affect us personally rather than worrying about others?

23 For if anyone only listens to the Word without obeying it and being a doer of it, he is like a man who looks carefully at his [own] natural face in a mirror;
24 For he thoughtfully observes himself, and then goes off and promptly forgets what he was like.

What will happen if we refuse to listen attentively to the word? Suppose that one morning we look at the face in the mirror and we don’t recognize ourselves. We ask, “Is that really me?” What a frightening thought! Something would be terribly wrong if this were to happen. After all, this is our very own face.

Someone who uses a mirror then immediately forgets what he looks like won’t recognize himself the next time he uses a mirror. In this case, previously known flaws would go ungroomed.

Luke chapter 6 drives the same point home in another way with a different analogy

The Wise and Foolish Builders

46 "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? 47 I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. 48 He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49 But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete

Q: How can you avoid forgetting what God’s Word tells you about yourself and what you should do?

25 But he who looks carefully into the faultless law, the [law] of liberty, and is faithful to it and perseveres in looking into it, being not a heedless listener who forgets but an active doer [who obeys], he shall be blessed in his doing (his life of obedience).

Laws are supposed to be enforceable rules intended to curtail criminal behavior so law-abiding citizens are free from the fear of criminals. Good idea, but whose law is perfect? Not any in human society.

The law at issue here is described as perfect and as giving freedom. It is that part of the word of truth that God has planted in believers. It is perfect because it is the eternal gift of God (1:17). It provides freedom because it is not like any normal human law. Rather than an external rule to enforce behavior by punishment, this law (or word) changes people at their core, releasing them to live out God’s desires because enacting his word comes naturally. It is the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:33, “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.” This law is best represented by “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:19). This is a positive principle for determining what God’s desire is from one situation to the next. James probably has this in mind because he refers to it in James 2:8 as the royal law. It is the key law instituted by Jesus for the kingdom of God.

D. Controlling Speech (v. 26)

26 If anyone thinks himself to be religious (piously observant of the external duties of his faith) and does not bridle his tongue but deludes his own heart, this person's religious service is worthless (futile, barren).

This verse deepens the importance of the second part of the proverb of James 1:19. The matter of the control of the tongue is underlined in dire, spiritual terms. James draws a straight line that connects this virtue of speech control to the genuineness of one’s religious experience, and then to the validity of the religion one claims to be true.

James believes at the very least that any religion worth anything should make its devotees better people in ways that others can observe. As applied to Christianity, the communication of its truth to others is utterly dependent on the way Christians behave. The way we talk is one of the best and easiest ways for people to experience the value of Christianity, not only to them as individuals but also to society at large.

Surprisingly, verse 26 uses the word religious like we would today. For the sake of his argument, James views Christianity as one of many religions that people follow. Of course, Christianity is the only completely true religion, since only it incorporates the full, direct revelation from God in Jesus Christ. However, the concern here is not with defending Christianity in terms of its truth claims. Rather, the issue is helping us know that when we fail to control our speech, we exhibit to the world that Christianity has no power to change people for the better. This is devastating to Christianity. We are to let the implanted word blossom into things like honest, uplifting, and genuine words. Compare Psalm 34:13; 39:1; and 141:3.

E. Practical Application (v. 27)

27 External ^[e]religious worship [^[f]religion as it is expressed in outward acts] that is pure and unblemished in the sight of God the Father is this: to visit and help and care for the orphans and widows in their affliction and need, and to keep oneself unspotted and uncontaminated from the world.

James explicitly extends the observations about the importance of a believer’s controlled speech to general behavior. Not only should a valid religion affect our speech, it should bring about observable improvements in the way we live our lives.

It is probably shocking to the first readers of James that a connection is made to widows and orphans, since they are at the very bottom of life economically and socially.

This verse emphasizes that believers should look after those widows and orphans. This does not imply that merely writing out a check exhibits the behavior that pleases God. Rather, what is at issue is caring enough to be involved personally. This is intended to be an example of many observable behaviors in believers that are the result of the word of truth becoming fruitful in our lives.

What Do You Think?

What keeps us from assisting needy people today? How do we overcome this?

A second example lies in how believers behave generally. Having cleaned up our lives to allow the implanted word to grow, we no longer want to exhibit behavior that looks like our old lives. To keep oneself from being polluted by the world does not imply that we are to retreat somehow from the world, keeping ourselves apart from unbelievers. Rather, it implies that believers are no longer to be influenced by the ideas and priorities that motivate unbelievers. We are to show them what Christianity looks like “in the flesh.” We can’t do that if we don’t associate with them.

Q: What is one aspect of God’s Word you’d like to concentrate on this week?

The gifts we have as Christians of salvation and transformed lives are intended to be used. Their involves allowing Christ’s principle of loving others to transform every thought, every desire, habit, every word, every deed and every attitude of our lives into living examples of God’s love for men and women everywhere.

The issue is now before us, now for the final question: what will we do with that which we have said, sung, and heard?

“Preacher or teacher that was a wonderful sermon,” it is often said by the churchmemeber at the door after the service or after class.
“That remains to be seen,” says the Word.

Thought to Remember- Live out the gift of the gospel in word and deed.

Defining Christian Faith (my first sermon)

“Defining Christian Faith”
My name is Scott Starr, I am a life long member of the Del City Church of Christ… some of you have known me my whole life and others of you might not know me yet. I was baptized right here at the age of ten – that would have been 1974 or 75.
. I lived for several years in Texas and prior to that I lived for several years here in town- but shall we say on the wide path- apart from the Lord…
. So, one might be able to say that for several years in my adult life I let my “faith” slip… At 10 , things were simple- I knew I wanted to be a good boy, I knew I believed in God and wanted to please him and I believed that the only way I could do that was to believe on Jesus Christ as the son of God and to follow in his ways…. When I got a little older, things seemed to get more complicated… and because my faith had never fully developed I lapsed… Now, it could be said that I have rediscovered my faith. As you might imagine, I have spent a great deal of time studying, considering and asking- what is faith anyways? How can faith help or save me- how can it fix my broken life? The ideas that follow are not necessarily my ideas- I’d like to take credit for them- but I am simply not smart enough to figure out some of these things on my own- but, I can read…
For most of my life I have had a sort of sketchy, unsure working definition of faith. Not only that, in my time walking the wide path of the world- and also since I started to fight my way back home to God- I have discovered that MANY people- not only the irreligious, the skeptics and unbelievers but also MANY of our fellow Christians have a sketchy, not well articulated definition of what faith is. There IS a distinction between worldly faith and Biblical faith…

Tonight we are going to nail down what biblical faith is… that is the title of this sermon, “Defining Biblical Faith”.

Brethren, we need to have a clear, functional, working definition of Biblical faith if we are to have any hope that living as a Christian is going to help us through the trials of this life and into the life eternal with God- also we need to be able to articulate our faith, our definition of faith to others if we have any hope of carrying out the great commission and evangelizing our fellow man.
Hebrews chapter 11 is known as the faith chapter of the Bible- we will spend some time looking at that chapter in a bit- Hebrews 11:6 tells us that without faith it is impossible to please God-
One of the things that made me aware of my own insufficient, sketchy ideas of what faith, Biblical faith, is was a documentary film I saw a couple of years ago. This film was made by some avowed atheists- worse still the creator of this film was a former Christian that had attended a private Christian school as a youth. He now considers himself a “recovering former Christian”. The film was entitled “The God Who Wasn’t There”. Many of you may not be aware of this but there is a social movement out there known as the New atheism- they are fiercely militaristic- as in aggressively evangelistic- this may not be a threat to a many of you as older mature believers- but they are coming after your children or grandchildren- there is no doubt.

Now, the opening sequences of this film, “The God Who Wasn’t There”, shows some impromptu questions posed at Christians or believers in God who were coming out of Christian concerts or movies like “The Passion of Christ” or even out of a megachurch. Undoubtedly the footage was carefully selected and edited to make the believers look as silly as possible. The end product was a success on that score.
Most of these Christians, these “shiny, happy people’” as they were described in the film when asked why do you believe in this God character this omniscient, omni benevolent God that micromanages everything on earth at once including our own personal affairs- stammer like deer in the headlights and say in one way or another, “well, it’s faith- I believe in God because I have faith.”
The questioners push one or two people further than that, saying, “I don’t understand, what does that mean? It doesn’t make sense to say you believe because you have faith- aren’t you saying essentially that you believe because you believe….what evidence do you really have that the universe works this way
There is no reason that mature Christian believers should not be able to deal with questions like this…When I saw this I was offended
Typically, the world will use the old straw man tactic
C.S. Lewis made point in his writings that unbelievers like to construct this sort of imaginary “straw man” version of Christianity that is suitable for a six year old- and hack away but then do not do nearly as well when facing a well instructed adult of mature faith. After watching this travesty of a movie- I decided that I wanted to be the well-instructed, faithful adult if I ever had a confrontation like this
Let me say that the only reason I even watched a movie like this is because I have never been afraid of questions- of even the toughest questions to the things I believe whether its opinions, politics, the way I do things in my personal or work life or ESPECIALLY with regards to my faith or religious beliefs- Ether real faith or a belief in something, if it is real, it can withstand the most rigorous of Questioning and challenges-
questions are opportunities to learn
One of the things I learned is that the notion that Christianity is based on a “leap of faith”, a suspension of disbelief like you put on when you go to see a movie like Star Wars or Batman, rather than an intellectual commitment of mind and soul to God is widespread in today’s culture.
One of the other problems with the concept of faith, as it is conceived of by many, is there is no clear distinction between attitude management techniques and what is purely Biblical faith or supernatural thinking if you will. Managing our attitudes is in fact very important- even essential to be an effective Christian, spiritual warrior or even just a good person. "Be positive" motivational techniques, however, are not in themselves keys to releasing the supernatural power of God. The supernatural peace of God which comes from his tangible presence is able to do FAR more than a peace that comes from attitude management.
The Apostle Paul writes in Ephesians 3, a prayer: 14For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, 17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height— 19 to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
20 Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, 21 to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.
So according to what is said here starting in verse 17 that Christ comes to dwell in your heart which in turn is they key is through which we come to know the love that passes all understanding and the fullness of God.
Let’s think about that for a second: “love that passes all understanding and the fullness of God.”
This is a pretty mature audience so I am going to assume that all or most of you know that love- true love- is much more than just a feeling
“The fullness of God” is much more than just a feeling too… and so then, Faith is not just a feeling either.
Again- WHAT IS faith then?
Alexander Campbell, one of Christianity’s great thinkers and also one of the founder’s of the Christian restoration movement that led to what we know as The Church of Christ defines it this way:
“ An act of judgment, induced by evidence that can be weighed by universal reason and involving the active cooperation of the will of persons with the free grace of God.”
That sounds like a
HALLMARK CARD OR PLAQUE doesn’t it? I can read it and understand it but it’s not necessarily something you’d walk around with on the tip of your tongue…
Lets break it down precisely. The good news is that we don’t have to re-invent the wheel here. These questions about the definitions have been worked out for centuries if we can only find the time to study them…
The Christian Reformers sought to distinguish true faith from false faith. The saying sola fide (justification by faith alone) demanded that they define faith in a precise manner.
Starting with Luther and developed further by others, the understanding of faith was expressed in three separate yet vitally connected aspects: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.
1. Notitia: This is the basic informational foundation of our faith. It is best expressed by the word content. Faith, according to the Reformers must have content. You cannot have faith in nothing. There must be some referential propositional truth to which the faith points. The proposition “Christ rose from the grave” for example, is a necessary information base that Christians must have.
2. Assensus: This is the assent or confidence that we have that the notitia is correct. Here we assent to the information affirming it to be true. This involves evidence which leads to the conviction of the truthfulness of the proposition. According to the Reformers, to have knowledge of the proposition is not enough. We must, to some degree, be convicted that it is indeed true. This involves intellectual assent and persuasion based upon critical thought. While notitia claims “Christ rose from the grave,” assensus takes the next step and says, “I am persuaded to believe that Christ rose from the grave.”
But these two alone are not enough according to the Reformers. As one person has said, these two only qualify you to be a demon for the demons both have the right information (Jesus rose from the grave) and are convicted of its truthfulness. One aspect still remains.
3. Fiducia: This is the “resting”in the information based upon a conviction of its truthfulness. Fiducia is best expressed by the English word “trust.” We have the information, we are persuaded of its truthfulness, now we have to trust in it. Christ died for our sins (notitia). I believe that Christ died for my sins (notitia + assensus). I place my trust in Christ to save me (fiducia). Fiducia is the personal subjective act of the will to take the final step. It is important to note that while fiducia goes beyond or transcends the intellect, it is built upon its foundation.
NOW when I read this- all the talk about faith started to make some sense-
NOW let’s look at Hebrews 11- the chapter that is called the faith chapter;
Hebrews 11:1-3 (Amplified)
1 NOW FAITH is the assurance (the confirmation, [a]the title deed) of the things [we] hope for, being the proof of things [we] do not see and the conviction of their reality [faith perceiving as real fact what is not revealed to the senses].
2 For by [faith--[b]trust and holy fervor born of faith] the men of old had divine testimony borne to them and obtained a good report.
3 By faith we understand that the worlds [during the successive ages] were framed (fashioned, put in order, and equipped for their intended purpose) by the word of God, so that what we see was not made out of things which are visible.
Without going into a long rant about Christian apologetics- let us just say that us faithful believers have a solid case concerning the existence of God and the life and times and resurrection of Jesus Christ- and we need not just say- I believe it because I want to believe it- our faith is based on concrete reasoning and evidence.
I once heard Paul Harvey say… If a person can look at all the beauty and harmony and complexity and interdependence and calibration in the world or the cosmos and rule out the possibility of a Creator- a God- then they really have to come up with an unbelievable explanation.
We understand now what faith is- but how do we practice it?
1. Know God- you must be convicted that he is real and then commit to a relationship with him as guided by scripture
2. Seek God’s will
3. Surrender to God’s will
4. Abandon self will
5. Actively pursue “supernatural thinking”
To be humble or meek means to accept what God ordains or commands and to seek help and or guidance from Him rather than trusting in one’s own intelligence or abilities. This does not mean a passive tolerance of injustice (especially towards others), but a reliance on God for vindication and a refusal to retaliate when insulted. The humble and/or meek person is convinced that God’s ways are good, so he neither disputes nor resists what God sends. The humble person does not have a low opinion of themselves- they are not occupied with self at all. Because they trust God’s goodness and control over situations, the meek person does not have to worry about their self interests or about self preservation or self improvement because they have turned over the lordship of their lives to God thru Christ.
Full reliance on God for strength to overcome our unrighteous character is the only way we can become the excellent kind of people God desires.
Examples of faith that include complete trust;
Luke 7 about the centurion who was willing to believe that Jesus could heal a loyal and trusted servant who was near death. The centurion told Jesus, “Just say the word, and my servant will be healed.”3
In response to the centurion, Jesus turned to the crowd that was following Him and said, “I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such great faith.”4 Jesus seemed to be saying that “great faith” was simply taking Him at His word.
Taking God at His Word
After reading and rereading the passage, with all its references to the phrase “by faith,” I began to see that all the people mentioned had one thing in common: No matter whom the writer of Hebrews was talking about, each person had simply taken God at His word and obeyed His command. And they were remembered for their faith.
Regardless of circumstances, despite arguments of logic and reason, and regardless of how he or she felt, each person mentioned in Hebrews 11 believed God and His word and chose to be obedient.
Hebrews 11 closes out with these verses:
32 How much more do I need to say? It would take too long to recount the stories of the faith of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, and all the prophets. 33 By faith these people overthrew kingdoms, ruled with justice, and received what God had promised them. They shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the flames of fire, and escaped death by the edge of the sword. Their weakness was turned to strength. They became strong in battle and put whole armies to flight. 35 Women received their loved ones back again from death.
But others were tortured, refusing to turn from God in order to be set free. They placed their hope in a better life after the resurrection. 36 Some were jeered at, and their backs were cut open with whips. Others were chained in prisons. 37 Some died by stoning, some were sawed in half,[d] and others were killed with the sword. Some went about wearing skins of sheep and goats, destitute and oppressed and mistreated. 38 They were too good for this world, wandering over deserts and mountains, hiding in caves and holes in the ground.
39 All these people earned a good reputation because of their faith, yet none of them received all that God had promised. 40 For God had something better in mind for us, so that they would not reach perfection without us.
If Luke 7 and Hebrews 11 illustrate great faith, is there a passage that illustrates a lack of faith?
In Mark 4 Initially, the Apostles took Jesus at His word, got into a boat with Him, and headed across the sea. But when a storm arose, they grew fearful. When Jesus asked them, “How is it that you have no faith?”8 He could just as easily have said, “Why are you not taking Me at My word?”
I have always loved the first verse of Mark 5: “And they came to the other side of the sea.” Jesus’ word proved to be true.
Faith is taking God at His word.
Unfaithfulness is not taking him at his word.
We have also established that it is really beyond human capacity to live life faithfully- we can really only be faithful by totally surrendering to God and allowing his spirit, The holy Spirit, to work in us- we cannot will ourselves to be faithful- we surrender to god and he cultivates faithfulness in our spirits.
Having said that- there are ways we can detect God's unction in our lives. We have what is called "twofold assurance":


1. Our hearts assure us (conscience)

2. The Holy Spirit within us- God’s Spirit working in our own Spirit
In the New Testament there are 30 references to conscience. The Greek word for conscience is suneidesis which is defined as an abiding consciousness whose nature it is to bear inner witness to one's own conduct in a moral sense. It is self awareness and God awareness.
Often people think of conscience as an afterthought, a twinge of guilt or remorse after the fact. However, conscience is a moral compass that is designed primarily for PREVENTION. As stated, in this sense, being out of touch with conscience and/or God can be disastrous for people, people groups or entire societies or civilizations.
The goal then is to harmonize, inasmuch as we are able, our consciences according to what God ordains as right and/or wrong.
There are three ways in which this is accomplished:

1. reproof and correction- we have to learn to receive correction from trusted, spiritual, strategic relationships.

2. sincere repentance- we must embrace a re calibrated, redefined consciousness and lifestyle of repentance.

3. Faith and comprehension- in the saving power of Christ and the raw power and genius of modeling our lives on his example. This includes understanding the aforementioned distinction between attitude management and or psychological crutches and the supernatural peace and tangible presence of God in one's life and/or mind.
Finally, There are six ways for a person to find or tap into supernatural inner strength and wisdom by FINE TUNING THE CONSCIENCE:

1. Fight your way out of a siege- don't lose heart.

2. Find the joy of camaraderie- cultivate strategic relationships.

3. Maintain ranks in the face of battle- in the midst of trials and triumphs alike, continue to keep the commandments of God.

4. Remember the BIG picture- focus on the glory of God even during hardships and always remember that the real enemy is not flesh but the forces of darkness in the spiritual realm.


5. Use the power of consistent focus- always remember the goal... to maintain righteousness and make it to the Heavenly Kingdom of God.

6. Stay connected to the source of joy- maintain an intense prayer life and communion with God... without this the vision and all the rest begins to fade.
Invitation:
if you are questioning your faith – struggling with issues of faith or if you have people in your life are struggling with it or dampening your own faith…
Or if you have not yet begun your journey of faith or made a commitment to God but right now feel the urge to do so come up and share your heart or your woes with us and we’ll pray on it together- come on down as we stand and sing.